Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BARCLAYS BANK BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Hunt Committee (Report)

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will now announce the actual date of publication of the Report of the Hunt Committee.

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why a period of eight to 10 weeks is to elapse between the Hunt Report being received by him and its being made available to hon. Members.

Mr. Barnett: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the actual date of publication of the report of the Hunt Committee.

Mr. Wallace: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs on what date he now proposes to publish the report of the Hunt Committee.

The Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore): There has been no avoidable delay, and the Hunt Committee Report is expected to be published before the end of April.

Mr. Campbell: As Government policy in Scotland has created an extraordinary anomaly in the small area in and around Edinburgh, will the Government take the urgent action which is necessary before even more distortion is caused?

Mr. Shore: The question of the Edinburgh area has been submitted to the Hunt Committee. We shall soon have for publication the views of the Hunt Committee, which can then be considered.

Mr. Barnett: In view of the lengthy delay in setting up the Hunt Committee and now in the publication of its Report which has delayed action being taken in the grey areas, like Lancashire, and my part of Lancashire in particular, may we have an assurance that any necessary legislation on its recommendations will be implemented at the earliest possible moment, if not this Session, then early next Session?

Mr. Shore: I promise my hon. Friend that there will be no avoidable delay in coming to conclusions on the Hunt Committee's report and taking what action may be necessary on it. But I must resist the suggestion that there has been delay either in setting up the Committee or in the Committee coming to conclusions. I also reject the suggestion that this has prevented us from carrying out many measures of great benefit to the North-West Region.

Earl of Dalkeith: Would the right hon. Gentleman note that since the Hunt Committee made its investigation in Edinburgh there has been a very serious deterioration in the job situation there which could possibly even justify its going back and having a second look?

Mr. Shore: I do not accept that there has been such a radical change since the evidence was submitted to the Hunt Committee. It will have taken account of this possibility.

Mr. George Jeger: Does my right hon. Friend recall that he said some time ago that delay in publishing the Hunt Committee's report would not deter him in taking emergency action in any area


where the unemployment position warranted it? Has his attention been drawn to the Thorne area in my constituency, where unemployment remains persistently at 11 per cent.?

Mr. Shore: I remember very well giving that assurance and, in particular, expressing our concern about the unemployment position in the winter of 1967–68. As things turned out, the unemployment situation generally in that winter was less serious than many people had predicted, particularly those on the Opposition Front Bench. I am glad to say that there has been no general deterioration in the intermediate areas since.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: In view of the great importance of having the utmost public discussion of the Hunt Committee's recommendations and the danger of its recommendations being overwhelmed by national interest in the Budget, would the right hon. Gentleman press for a more expeditious method of printing and follow the example of many municipal authorities which produce documents more quickly, if less elegantly, than the Government?

Mr. Shore: I will look at any reasonable suggestions for accelerating the printing process. But I am sure that there is nothing unusual in this length of time for a substantial report.

Private and Public Consumption

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why the list of reasons in "The Task Ahead", on page 16, for the possible failure of devaluation includes failure to restrain adequately the rise in personal consumption; and why it was decided not to include failure to restrain adequately the rise in public consumption.

Mr. Shore: Our balance-of-payments objectives would be jeopardised if either personal or public consumption were inadequately restrained. Chapters 5 and 6 show clearly that public expenditure and consumption have already been severely restrained and will continue to be kept under close control.

Mr. Ridley: Since we are told officially by the Postmaster-General that devaluation has failed, would the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is because

of the failure to restrain public consumption? Would he give the House the figures for the increase in both public and private consumption over the last four years of the present Administration?

Mr. Shore: I cannot give those figures without notice. But the hon. Gentleman should be a little more accurate in interpreting the comments made by my right hon. Friend. He did not say that devaluation had failed. He suggested that there had been a certain disappointment at the speed with which the economy had responded to it. I would disagree with my right hon. Friend in terms of our export response, which has been very good.

Mr. Cant: Would my right hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that a study of the O.E.C.D. statistics shows clearly that the critical difference between this country and any other advanced industrial country is the percentage of our gross national product spent on personal consumption?

Mr. Shore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful reminder. As a nation we spend, and have spent for many years, a very much greater part of our gross national product on personal consumption, and a successful strategy in switching resources to the balance of payments must mean some reduction in that proportion.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Question on the Order Paper has nothing at all to do with that point? If he cannot answer the supplementary questions so far put to him, may I put a more simple question to him? Is it or is it not true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out a year ago in his Budget to reduce consumption, and did he or did he not succeed?

Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend set out in his Budget of last year to reduce personal consumption. When it became apparent that the Budget had not had the effect that had been anticipated, he introduced further measures in November. The right hon. Gentleman's contribution on both occasions was to deny that it was necessary.

Development Areas

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will initiate an investigation into the effect of the investment grant differential and the Regional Employment Premium in creating employment in the Northern, Scottish and Welsh development areas.

Mr. Shore: A close watch is kept on the impact of all regional measures, although several of them, including those mentioned in the Question, have been in operation for a comparatively short time.

Mr. Blaker: Since unemployment in the northern region is 73 per cent. higher, in Wales 37 per cent. higher and in Scotland 18 per cent. higher than in the autumn of 1965 when the National Plan was published, is not there room for doubt whether the expenditure of £260 million in so-called assistance to development areas is money well spent?

Mr. Shore: The logic of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is to suggest to me that we should be spending more in development areas, but I gather that that is not the conclusion which he has reached. The trend of the movement of industry into development areas has been very good, particularly taking into account that the last two years have not been a period of expansion and the exceptionally heavy run-down in the coal industry.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs by how much he expects that the differential in unemployment between the development areas and the rest of the country will be reduced between the present time and 1972.

Mr. Shore: We expect a further relative improvement over the period to 1972, though our provisional assessment suggests that the progress will not be evenly spread over all the development areas.

Mr. Blaker: Since it is perfectly clear that the Government have no idea what value for money they are getting from spending £260 million a year on so-called assistance to development areas, and since they were elected on a programme of bringing cost-effectiveness into government, should not they make some effort

to find out what value for money they are getting?

Mr. Shore: There is a genuine difficulty in terms of the time for which these measures have been operating. The R.E.P. and the differential investment grant have been in operation, in terms of paying out, for less than two years, and it is not possible in so short a time to come to adequate conclusions about the effectiveness of these measures.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend give to the House any figures which indicate a reduction in the differential in the unemployment rate during the last four or five years between development areas and the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Shore: There has been some closing of the gap between the unemployment rate in the development areas as a whole and that in Great Britain.

Retraining

Mr. Woof: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what contribution the assessments in "The Task Ahead" assumes of the growth of productivity from the growth of retraining facilities, particularly in the regions.

The Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs (Mr. T. W. Urwin): We attach great importance to retraining facilities, but it is not possible to quantify the precise contribution they make to the growth of productivity.

Mr. Woof: Is my hon. Friend aware that a large percentage of those unemployed in the North-East who worked in the old basic industries are classified as unskilled, and that a substantial expansion of retraining facilities is required to enable them to take their place confidently in the new industries which are badly needed? Will he say whether the growth of productivity over the next few years is closely identified with this factor?

Mr. Urwin: The provision of retraining facilities for those who have been made redundant in the mines and other basic industries is vitally important and is one reason why the expansion of the Government training centres has been so rapid. My hon. Friend may be glad to know that whereas in the development areas in


October, 1964, only 1,340 places were available, in February, 1969, there were 3,770 and within the next three years there should be a further increase to 5,700 places. Together with other manpower policies, retraining should make a major contribution to competitiveness and growth.

North-East Development Region

Mr. Woof: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to what extent the Government economic assessment involves the development of increasing employment opportunities and the attraction of further industrial growth in the North-East Development Region.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Frederick Lee): Our discriminatory regional policy is concentrated on helping every development area to get an increasing number of new jobs. In 1968 we spent about £48 million on discriminatory assistance in the Northern Region. The economic assessment takes full account of the contribution we expect this expenditure to make to the growth of new employment in the region.

Mr. Woof: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he has excluded the possibility and desirability of creating more special development areas within the Northern Region, and what crucial contribution the Government are prepared to make to reduce the continuing heavy rate of unemployment there?

Mr. Lee: The Northern Region gains more from the policy of special development areas than any other region and is responding very adequately. In reply to the second part of the question, the Government are spending more on and getting better results from the development area policy than ever before in the industrial history of the country.

Sir C. Osborne: Did not the Labour Party promise full employment for everybody? Why are the Government allowing more than half-a-million people to remain permanently unemployed?

Mr. Lee: If when the Conservative Party were in power they had not funked the issue of the restructuring of industry, we should now be further ahead than we are.

Special Development Areas

Mr. Fred Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's special development area policy.

Mr. Shore: The added incentives to industry, including the building of advance factories, are making themselves felt. The number of jobs in prospect in these areas is now some 23,000. Since November, 1967, 28 advance factories have been allocated and a further six bespoke factories have been authorised.

Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Will he bear in mind that there are many areas, including South Wales, where the level of unemployment is still totally unacceptable? Will he press for incentives to be given for bringing in industry, and will he bear in mind that the attitude of hon. Members opposite towards special development areas gives us no encouragement unless the job is done quickly?

Mr. Shore: We are very conscious of the needs of South Wales and, in particular, of those areas of South Wales which are part of special development areas, but I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that the figures which I have given to him this afternoon suggest that the policy is having some effect.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that further progress, at least in Scotland, will depend largely on the investment programme of the Steel Corporation, and will he say what part his Department is playing in assessing the regional priorities of the various proposals, in particular the plans for oil terminals and steel works at present before the Corporation?

Mr. Shore: That is a different question, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to know, I am in close touch with the Minister of Power on the regional location of any new units in the steel industry.

Employment (Public Sector)

Mr. Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the basis of his estimate that there will be


an increase in employment in the public sector during the period covered by "The Task Ahead".

The Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Alan Williams): The bulk of the expected increase is in the health and education services and is due to the rising proportions of children and old people in the population and to the need to improve the quality of the services.

Mr. Ellis: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the demand for these services is expected to rise, and is he prepared to review the figures in the light of an increase in public spending and not be put off by hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir. We naturally ignore the propaganda points from the Opposition, bearing in mind that our prior purpose is to look after the real needs of society, both the young and the old.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is it the intention of the Government to maintain an average of half-a-million unemployed?

Mr. Williams: I do not see how that arises from this Question, but of course it is not our intention. Our intention is to return to full employment.

North-West Economic Planning Council (Report)

Mr. Coe: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when the Government's reply to the North-West Economic Planning Council's Report, Strategy II, will be published; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the reply he has now given to the North-West Economic Planning Council on the proposals in Strategy II.

Mr. Shore: The Government's reply to the Council's Report was published on 19th March. Copies have been sent to all M.P.s in the region and are available in the Library.

Mr. Coe: While I am encouraged by the evidence in that Report and the efforts of my right hon. Friend to promote long-term planning between the various planning authorities, in the case of local authorities what steps is he taking to

ensure the continuity of this long-term planning when the time comes for a number of existing local authorities to disappear in the reorganisation of local government?

Mr. Shore: As my hon. Friend knows, some ad hoc arrangements have been made between existing authorities in the North-West which, in a sense, anticipate the reorganisation of local government. That apart, I think we must await the publication of the Maud Report before going further in that direction.

Mr. Davidson: Much play was made in Strategy II and in the Government's reply of population growth. Is he aware that the endemic problem from which we have suffered in North-East Lancashire over the years is the direct opposite, namely, population drift? Is he satisfied that this drift is now declining, and will he concentrate on bringing new industry into the area to ensure that the population stays there?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend knows that the facts about population movement and growth in the North-West region are a bit more complicated than he has suggested. First, there is considerable growth in population, and this is combined in some parts of the region—especially in North-East Lancashire with which my hon. Friend is closely associated—with a decline in population. We want to devise a strategy which takes account of the needs of new housing at the location of additional population, and, at the some time, looks after those areas which are suffering population decline.

Mr. Waddington: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of disappointment at the tone of his reply to Strategy II, particularly the airy-fairy nature of the promises made to North-East Lancashire? Is he aware, in particular, that it is not good enough to say that the Government accept the case for a new road link between the M6 and the Calder Valley, because what the people of North-East Lancashire are entitled to expect, surely, is that, before the new town comes into existence, that new road link will be there?

Mr. Shore: The timing of road building is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. However, I am not aware that there is disappointment in the North-West Region with the reply which we have given.

Yorkshire and Humberside Region

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what action he proposes to take to increase the rate of employment growth in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region, which is expected to decline further, as outlined in paragraph 24, chapter 9, Regional Strategy and Prospects, of "The Task Ahead."

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps he is taking to ameliorate economic conditions in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region, in view of the statement, about its slow employment growth in paragraph 34 of chapter 9, entitled Regional Strategy and Prospects, in "The Task Ahead."

Mr. Urwin: The Government are considering what measures are necessary and practicable, bearing in mind also the needs of other areas.

Mr. Osborn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a most bland and depressing statement in "The Task Ahead"? In view of the fact that it will be some two months before the Hunt Committee's Report is published, which will no doubt confirm what is the task ahead, surely the Government should not be "considering". They should be taking action to prevent the sort of trend which they admit is happening now.

Mr. Urwin: The Hunt Committee has considered the claims of many areas for special assistance. It is important that consideration should be given to the Committee's findings as a whole.

Mr. Hooley: Would my hon. Friend agree that it is very important to locate new centres of administration and research in this area? Will he protest strenuously to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science about placing the headquarters of the open university in the South-East, when it might have formed an important cultural and growth centre in another region?

Mr. Urwin: The Government's dispersal policy has been of great benefit to a number of areas in the country, and I assure my hon. Friend that the needs of the area to which he refers will be con- 
sidered in the future, in conjunction with many others.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that the Yorkshire and Humberside Region is too large? There are too many pockets of unemployment, like that in Mexborough, which has a level of over 6 per cent. Will he do something about it quickly and not await publication and discussion of the Hunt Report?

Mr. Urwin: I am conscious of the problem which my hon. Friend raises, and we are considering particularly the situation and prospects in the coalfield area.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what representations he has recently received from local authority organisations in Yorkshire about the economic future of the Region; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Urwin: The West Riding of Yorkshire Urban District Councils Association has urged that South Yorkshire should be designated as a development area. It was informed by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade that its views would be taken fully into account in the Government's review of the recommendations of the Hunt Committee.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon Friend for that reply. Has he had any representations from a consortium of local authorities, known as the 44 Group? If he has, what reply has he sent to it?

Mr. Urwin: As the House knows, a certain number of representations have been made, but no reply will be sent until we have considered the Hunt Report. The 44 Group is to be congratulated on the work which it has done in helping to co-ordinate the aims of local authorities, and on its collective effort in assisting economic planning councils in their work.

Overseas Expenditure

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why the projected deficit on Government overseas expenditure, both current, invisibles, and capital, is £90 million


greater at 1964 prices, in view of the fact that the target surplus on the balance of payments in "The Task Ahead" is larger than in the National Plan.

Mr. Alan Williams: Unfortunately the hon. Member has misread Table 3.1 in the Economic Assessment, which shows Government overseas expenditure at current, not constant, prices.

Mr. Osborn: May I ask whether the surplus which has been budgeted has altered since the publication of this Green Paper?

Mr. Williams: No, Sir.

Agriculture (Labour Force)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in his assessment of the supply of labour in chapter 7 of "The Task Ahead" what estimate he has made of the ability of agriculture to continue the release of workers at the present rate.

Mr. Alan Williams: It is considered that manpower in the industry will continue to fall and output per head continue to rise at much the same rate as in recent years. This is consistent with the growth in output implied in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 12th November, 1968.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Report of the "Little Neddy" on agriculture said that the rate of outflow of workers from agriculture ought to be halved if the agricultural expansion programme were to be realised? Does he accept that, or has he abandoned the expansion programme for agriculture, as the latest Price Review seems to indicate?

Mr. Williams: As the hon. Gentleman knows, those assumptions about manpower were based on an import-saving increase of £220 million, whereas our programme is based on an import saving, over the period to 1972, of £160 million. Therefore, our manpower assumptions are consistent with our output assumptions. I might add that the Price Review is an extremely generous one. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, it is better than 12 out of the 13 produced by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and their 13th was before a General Election.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions and Answers are getting too long.

Nuclear Submarine Contracts

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what representations he has received from the Northwest Economic Planning Council regarding the implications for the Merseyside employment situation of the decision to cease placing contracts for nuclear submarines, and for their re-fitting, at Cammell Laird, Birkenhead; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Urwin: My right hon. Friend wrote to the Chairman of the North-West Planning Council as he indicated in his reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 28th February. They have considered the matter and we have their views. I know there is some disappointment on Merseyside, but I am quite satisfied that if only one yard can be economically employed in the future, then the choice of Barrow has merit on regional planning grounds.

Mr. Brooks: Will my hon. Friend indicate to the House what the views of the Planning Council are? Will he not agree that it is rather baffling to tell the Council something which the Government have decided a year earlier? In view of the need for a little forward planning rather than posthumous planning, would it not be a good idea to ask it to comment on the scope for nuclear propulsion work for mercantile vessels on the Mersey?

Mr. Urwin: I observe that my hon. Friend has some doubt about the wisdom of the decision. It is not seen as a threat in the future to the economy of Merseyside in the way that he suggests. I am satisfied that nothing would have been gained by drawing the information to the attention of the Council at an earlier stage.

Mr. Fortescue: What part have the relative employment situations on Merseyside and Barrow played in coming to the decision that the submarine should be built at Barrow?

Mr. Urwin: That is one of the factors taken into account in arriving at the situation. It is a fact that Barrow is


more vulnerable than Merseyside because of its comparative geographical isolation.

Mr. Ogden: In view of the employment situation, is my hon. Friend aware that many Merseyside-based shipping companies place orders for new ships with yards as far apart as Hong Kong, Rotterdam and Japan? Could not more influence be brought to bear on them to place their orders with Cammell Laird, which is on their doorstep?

Mr. Urwin: I accept my hon. Friend's comment. It is highly desirable that attention should be paid to this important factor.

Balance of Payments

Mr. Peyton: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he expects the aim of a £500 million surplus on the balance of payments to be achieved.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to what extent the policy outlined in the new economic planning document is based on a change from balance of payments deficit to a surplus of £500 million; and when this will be achieved.

Mr. Hordern: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when the aim of economic policy, namely, the conversion of the balance of payments deficit into an annual surplus of £500 million, will be obtained.

Mr. Shore: The first priority of economic policy is to convert the balance of payments deficit into a substantial surplus of the order of £500 million as soon as possible. The speed at which it will be achieved will depend not only on the Government's action but on many other factors, including the joint efforts of both sides of industry in switching the necessary resources into the balance of payments.

Mr. Peyton: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he did not even begin to answer the Question? However, his reply is welcome to the extent that it may indicate that the Government are at last learning some modesty about their ability to forecast events. Does the Minister realise that public reaction to his Department and to the Government generally is a mixture of disdain and disregard as

each forecast is falsified and each promise is broken?

Mr. Shore: It would be a mistake to attempt to give a precise date for this particular surplus, because there are so many factors involving the whole nation, and in particular both sides of industry, in the achievement of the substantial surplus that we need.

Mr. Taylor: If one of the factors which will bring it about is the efforts made by management and labour, why are the Government showing such appalling delays and complacency in bringing forward the legislation on labour relations which they said was urgent and important?

Mr. Shore: It is extraordinary to hear from the other side of the House complaints about, as they allege, delay on our part to do things which the did nothing about in all those years that they were in power.

Mr. Hordern: What is the point of producing a complicated economic planning document of this kind when the Government do not even know when they will achieve their first objective of producing a surplus of £500 million? When will they wake up from the dream world in which they live?

Mr. Shore: The purpose of the economic assessment is to give industry as reasonably good an assessment of the next five years as we possibly can. I assure the hon. Gentleman that industry would be highly sceptical of any Government attempting to forecast precisely the particular order of magnitude of a surplus in any year.

Mr. Barnett: Would it not be better to say that we shall not achieve a £500 million surplus, that we do not need to achieve it—nor do we need to achieve the figure of £700 million which the Opposition have quoted as their target—but that we prefer to go for a more realistic target of £200 million which is within our sights and which would give us the opportunity of a much higher rate of growth than would otherwise be possible?

Mr. Shore: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's judgment that this is not a necessary surplus for us to obtain. Nor do I accept his pessimism that the attainment


of such a surplus is beyond the capacity of this nation.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Use of Resources

Mr. Tom Boardman: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why "The Task Ahead", uses a different definition in Table 6.1 for the claims on resources for achieving the balance of payments target from the definition used in the comparable Table 1.1 of the National Plan; and if he will give comparable figures on both bases together with the actual change between 1964 and 1967.

Mr. Alan Williams: The actual changes between 1964 and 1967, on both bases, are set out in a table to be circulated in the Official Report. It was decided to reduce the sub-divisions of

USE OF RESOURCES (£ MILLION)


National Plan Basis (a) (constant 1964 prices)
Economic Assessment Basis (constant 1967 prices)



1964
1967

1964
1967


GNP at market prices
33,258
35,225
GDP at market prices
36,861
39,093


Balance of trade in goods and services including net property income from abroad.
−213
−310
Net property income from abroad.
431
410





Balance of trade in goods and services (b).
−500
−568


Investment:
Investment:


Manufacturing and construction
1,346
1,436
Private industry and services
2,898
3,056


Other private industry and services
1,349
1408


Nationalised industries
1,145
1,379
Nationalised industries
1,271
1,530


Stockbuilding
639
114
Stockbuilding
726
130


Housing
1,210
1,326
Housing
1,336
1,464


Roads
190
245
Public services
813
1,033


Other public services
561
708


Transfer costs of land and buildings
59
61
Transfer costs of land and buildings.
60
62


Defence
1,925
2,030
Defence
2,197
2,317


Consumption:
Consumption:


Social and other public services
3,470
4,048
Social and other public services.
4,068
4,746


Personal
21,577
22,854
Personal
23,908
25,323


(a) 1964 figures revised in conformity with National Income and Expenditure: 1968 Blue Book,


(b) Excluding net property income from abroad.

Mr. Tom Boardman: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in view of the fact that the period 1967 to 1972 covers three phases for the pattern of the use of resources in relation to the

investment in table 6.1 to avoid unnecessary detail and to give more scope for variation in the light of the consultations with industry and, for these reasons, projections to 1972 on the National Plan basis are not given. The exclusion of investment income from the balance of trade in goods and services arises from the use of G.D.P. instead of G.N.P. as a measure of national output.

Mr. Boardman: Do not these figures show that, if like were compared with like, the task of improving the balance of payments is very much greater now than in 1964? Is this not a damning indictment of the Government's economic policy?

Mr. Williams: No, Sir. If like were compared with like, in 1964 we inherited a ramshackle economy with out-of-date industry. We now have a better industrial base on which to found our expansion, and devaluation has given us a competitive edge abroad.

Following is the Table:

period averages in Table 6.1 of "The Task Ahead," if he will sub-divide these projections to show the actual changes between 1967 and the latest available figures, the projected changes between


then and 1970, and the changes between 1970 and 1972.

Mr. Alan Williams: No, Sir. "The Task Ahead" is concerned with the changes that have to take place in the use of resources between now and 1972, but it does not attempt to predict the precise timing of their achievement. This will depend in large measure on the success by all concerned in improving the balance of payments.

Mr. Boardman: Does not the presentation confuse past performance with present plans and future forecasts, and is not this designed to conceal the true size of the problem?

Mr. Williams: Not to anyone who knows his way around an economic document.

"The Task Ahead"

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will publish a revised Check-list for Action appropriate to the new planning document.

Mr. Shore: One of the principal aims of the consultations described in Chapter 10 of "The Task Ahead" will be to identify the action which should be taken to improve economic performance.

Mr. Lane: When the right hon. Gentleman draws up his list, will he put very high on it a reduction in the amount of distraction and interference which both private and public industry is having to endure from the present Government?

Mr. Shore: That is an odd comment, because the dialogue which we shall be having with industry over the planning document will, or could well, lead to proposals from industry requesting the Government to do certain things which the hon. Gentleman may interpret as interference but which others might interpret as very useful intervention.

Northern Region, Scotland and Wales (Migration)

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what estimate he has made of the net outflow of population each year from the Northern Region, Scotland and Wales, respectively, from 1969 to 1972.

Mr. Urwin: None, Sir. It is very difficult to forecast to what extent the success of intensified regional policy measures will lead to reduced migration from these regions, as well as lower unemployment and higher activity rates.

Mr. Shaw: But does not the hon. Gentleman recall that the National Plan stated that a review was being set up to forecast the trends in population movements? What has happened to that review? May we be told what evidence it gives on this matter?

Mr. Urwin: I should inform the hon. Gentleman that the policy, and the fructification of the policy concerning regional assistance, is intended to produce over the next few years a more even spread of employment opportunities which will in time lead to major reductions in net migration from the less prosperous regions. I should require notice of the other aspect of the hon. Member's question.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that Government assistance to development areas has already been the means of saving many valuable communities from disintegrating, particularly the mining valleys of South Wales which have been acutely affected by pit closures?

Mr. Urwin: Yes. I should point out to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the stability of any structure depends entirely on the strength of its foundations—in regional and development area terms—a problem so long neglected by the Opposition when they were in power. The Government are now reinforcing the foundations and building an entirely new fabric in those areas where Government assistance is badly needed.

Unemployment and the Balance of Payments

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs on what criteria he bases the policy outlined in the new economic planning document of making a reduction in the present level of unemployment consequential upon an improvement in the balance of payments.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: asked the Secretary of State for Economic


Affairs what is the reduction in unemployment which the new planning document allows from its present level between now and 1972 on the basic case.

Mr. Hordern: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to what extent it is the policy of the Government that there should be a connection between the balance of payments position and the level of unemployment.

Mr. Shore: Full employment is a major aim of the Government's policy. The size and speed of the reduction in unemployment cannot be exactly predicted since it depends on progress with the balance of payments, achieving a better balance of regional employment and on such factors as success in retraining and redeploying workers.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Government's current economic strategy designed to secure an increase or a reduction in the present unemployment rate? Can the Minister say, in particular, whether the economic strategy takes into account the securing of trade union reform legislation within the next 12 months?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman has already been told the timetable for the Measures on industrial relations—[Interruption.] It is for someone else to answer that Question, not for me.
On the hon. Gentleman's main point, the basic case put forward in the planning document, which he will see if he reads it carefully, is wholly consistent with a decline in unemployment in the period of the assessment.

Mr. Hordern: Can the Minister answer the Question which I put down? Is there, in the Government's view, a direct link between the level of unemployment and the balance of payments position?

Mr. Shore: It is an extraordinarily simple Question for the hon. Gentleman.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Shore: I will. I should have thought that it was self-evident, even to the dimmest intelligence, that a nation has to earn its living and that, if it cannot earn its living by its ordinary trade and other transactions, in a country like ours, employment will inevitably suffer.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman knows the anxiety in the House about the unemployment figures. Does he recall the statement of the Prime Minister on 20th July, 1966, that the upper limit might be of the order of 2 per cent.? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for about 21 months the figure has been above 2 per cent.? Does he see any prospect of it dropping below that?

Mr. Shore: Yes, Sir. As the economic assessment makes clear, we assume that there will be a decrease in unemployment over the period of the assessment. What we have not attempted to do is to give a time path of this change because it crucially depends on the two factors which I mentioned earlier, success with the balance of payments and success in our regional policies.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the economic strategy is now proving beneficial to Scotland? Is he further aware that in 1963, when the Opposition were the Government, there were 136,000 unemployed people in Scotland, whereas the figure is now 80,000? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the trade unions will play their part in carrying out the White Paper, "In Place of Strife", provided that managements measure up to their responsibilities?

Mr. Shore: I thank my hon. Friend for his very useful contribution.

Development Areas (Discriminatory Financial Assistance)

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why, in view of the increase in the scale of the discriminatory financial assistance to development areas since 1965, which the new planning document, "The Task Ahead", underlines, the only estimate made of additional jobs created in development areas relates to jobs deriving from the use of the industrial development certificate procedure.

Mr. Urwin: The only specific statistics relating to the growth of employment opportunities in development areas are those relating to I.D.C. applications. These do not, however, reflect the full impact of development area incentives, and the assessment in "The Task


Ahead" does take account of the other ways in which such incentives are expected to lead to increased employment in development areas.

Mr. Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that vast sums of money are being spent on other incentives? Is it not utterly wrong that these large sums of money should be spent without his being able to make any assessment of the benefits which are derived from the regional employment premium?

Mr. Urwin: The only measures which have a distinct job relationship are those taken under the I.D.C. policy and under the Local Employment Acts. I discount the hon. Gentleman's comment that we are not getting value for money. I am sure that my hon. Friends who represent development areas will be in complete agreement with me when I say that industry in those areas is being very well diversified as a result of the policies now in train, to the advantage of the areas concerned.

Dr. John Dunwoody: I assure my hon. Friend that people in the development areas welcome the work being done by the Government to stimulate the economy in those areas. Nevertheless, would my hon. Friend accept, looking back at the unemployment figures for February of this year and last year, that while there has been a reduction in unemployment in the non-development areas, unemployment has risen marginally in the development areas? Does not this show that we should be doing more rather than less?

Mr. Urwin: The suggestion that we should be doing more is one which will meet with general approbation, especially on this side of the House, but I ask my hon. Friend to await the outcome of the discussions on the Hunt Report.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how 35,000 jobs net have been lost during the last four years in Scotland, whereas there was a net gain of 30,000 jobs in the previous four years, a question which the Prime Minister was unable to answer last week?

Mr. Urwin: Jobs are being generated at a faster rate in Scotland than at any time in the history of Conservative Governments.

Annual Growth

Mr. Barnett: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will give his estimate of the extent to which annual growth is restricted for each £100 million of surplus on balance of payments, taking into account the various assumptions in the document, "The Task Ahead."

Mr. Shore: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the Answer which my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, gave to my hon. Friend on 13th March.—[Vol. 779, c. 333–4.]

Mr. Barnett: Is it not a fact that we could aim for a higher rate of growth with a target of £200 million surplus on the balance of payments than with one of £500 million, which in any event could not be maintained for any consistent period, and should not we tell the I.M.F. that that is precisely what we propose to do?

Mr. Shore: I do not dispute that the balance of payments restraint is an important restraint on economic growth, but I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that we need a surplus of only £200 million in the years ahead. I think that we need a considerably more ambitious surplus than that.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: To assist his hon. Friend's proposal, will the right hon. Gentleman consider inviting the Postmaster-General to address the I.M.F. and to explain his ideas?

Oral Answers to Questions — E.F.T.A. COUNTRIES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Ql. Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister what visits he proposes making to the European Free Trade Association countries.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I have been asked to reply.?
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Graves-end (Mr. Murray) on 27th February, he will be making an official visit to Sweden in early July.

Mr. Molloy: My Question goes a little wider than that. I am concerned because


the Government seem to be hypnotised by their efforts to get into the Common Market, which I think is dangerous. Ought not we to acknowledge that we have E.P.T.A. partners and ought we not to show as much appreciation of their existence, in the possible hope of entering a new phase for European policy, as we show the Common Market?

Mr. Stewart: The European Free Trade Area is in full vigour, and we are in constant touch with our partners there. There was an opportunity for a full exchange of views at the Ministerial meeting of ELF.T.A. on 21st November, and there will be a further opportunity at the E.F.T.A. Ministers' next meeting on 8th and 9th May.

Sir F. Bennett: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that our relations, economic or political, with E.F.T.A. countries would be improved if the Prime Minister were to visit those countries?

Mr. Stewart: There are very many invitations from foreign countries for the Prime Minister to visit them, more, of course, than he is able to accept.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend decide once and for all to abandon these visits to other countries, particularly to European countries? Is he not aware by now that the more often Ministers and ex-Ministers perambulate around the continent of Europe the worse the situation becomes?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA (ARMS BAN)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Prime Minister if he will now seek a meeting with the Heads of Government of France, Portugal and Russia to discuss joint sponsorship of an international ban on arms shipments to Nigeria and Biafra.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
I would refer my hon. Friend to the debate on 13th March when I dealt fully with the difficulties surrounding an international arms embargo.

Mr. Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Russian Embassy in

London does not appear to be aware of any proposition about an arms ban having been put to it by the British Government? In view of that, will my right hon. Friend say why he is so definite about the refusal of the Russians to cooperate in this matter?

Mr. Stewart: We have made inquiries about this and the position is as I stated it during the debate, that such an embargo, to be effective, would have to be policed inside Nigeria itself.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the right hon. Gentleman pursue this, because his objection has been that there would be a black market in arms? If the four larger Powers were agreed, it would not be impossible to control it.

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that during the debate I set out certain measures which I thought might be effective if they were taken together. We may know more about the possibilities when my right hon. Friend returns.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Assuming that my right hon. Friend wishes to stop the slaughter in Nigeria as soon as possible, may I ask him to consider that perhaps the shortest and best way to do that is to send one interceptor fighter to stop French arms going in there?

Mr. Stewart: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAMMELL LAIRD, BIRKENHEAD

Mr. Brooks: asked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to the shipbuilding yards of Cammell Laird, Birkenhead.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

Mr. Brooks: In view of all the adverse criticism that has recently been heaped on Merseyside, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is worth noting that this major shipyard has an excellent record in recent years both in industrial relations and in competitive tendering? Before irrevocable decisions are taken which might end this centre of excellence


in nuclear engineering, does not my right hon. Friend agree that an urgent appraisal is needed to give it scope for building nuclear merchant ships?

Mr. Stewart: The position was set out by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy on 10th and 20th March, and it is that our current programme is not sufficient to maintain two building yards on nuclear submarine work. A choice had to be made between Vickers and Cammell Laird, and the decision was based on sound economic reasons and taken in the knowledge of Vickers' greater experience and capacity in all aspects of the work. Cammell Laird's order book for commercial vessels, I understand, is quite healthy, and I believe that other orders are in prospect.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (PRICE REVIEW)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made to meet the leaders of the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. Jopling: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange an early meeting to discuss agricultural expansion with the leaders of the agricultural industry.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a meeting with the President of the National Farmers' Union for England and Wales on 10th March.

Mr. Mills: Yes, but would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, in view of the present economic circumstances and the plight of agriculture, the recent Price Review has not provided adequate resources for agriculture to play the part it should play?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. I do not agree with that. The determinations which the Minister of Agriculture announced give agriculture the resources to carry out a selective expansion programme. Apart from what happened in 1964 and 1967,

this is the best Review for more than twenty years.

Mr. Jopling: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that last week's Price Review was in any way compatible with the Minister of Agriculture's statement last November? Is he aware that the farmers have lost all confidence in the Government in view of the scandalous double-talk of the last four months?

Mr. Stewart: On the first part, yes, that is what I was asserting, and the facts justify it. On the second part, I do not accept that at all.

Mr. Maclennan: When the leaders of the National Farmers' Union met the Prime Minister, did they make it clear that they continue their strong opposition to the Opposition's policy on agriculture?

Mr. Stewart: The contents of the discussions between my right hon. Friend and the National Farmers' Union are confidential, but it is well known that the N.F.U. takes the view which my hon. Friend ascribes to it.

Mr. Godber: As we shall have an opportunity to debate that on Monday, I do not propose to follow it, but would the right hon. Gentleman come back to the original Question and tell us whether the statement of the Minister of Agriculture in November had the support of his colleagues in the House? If it did, why has it not been honoured in the Price Review?

Mr. Stewart: That was not the original Question, but since the right hon. Gentleman has asked it, I must say again that this incompatibility which he claims to find is not there: it is not justified by the facts.

Mr. English: While recognising that the virtues of this Price Review are considerably greater than seem to be recognised by some hon. Members opposite, may I ask my right hon. Friend to dispose of the rumours that, to please the Treasury accountants, there is some suggestion of shifting subsidy from the taxpayer to the consumer, which would certainly be resisted by many on these benches?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC SITUATION

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the results of his policy announced on 20th July, 1966; and what new measures he proposes to introduce to achieve his aims of a strong sterling and favourable balance of payments.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the Statement which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making on 15th April.

Sir C. Osborne: Are the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor aware that the rate for sterling in July, 1966 was 2·7987 and that today it is 2·3936—[Hon. Members: "Reading."] Whether you like the figures or not, you are going to have them—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not threaten me.

Sir C. Osborne: The rate today is—[Interruption.]—15 per cent. worse than it was in July, 1966—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—and, as regards the balance of payments, in 1966, there was a favourable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—May I have your assistance, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are losing valuable Question time.

Sir C. Osborne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1966 there was a favourable balance of payments of £15 million, that in 1967 it had turned—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is unbearable—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is my job to protect hon. Members. Sir Cyril Osborne.

Sir C. Osborne: In 1966, there was a favourable balance of £15 which the next year was turned—[Hon. Members:"Reading."]—into a deficit of £404 million and that last year—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.

Sir C. Osborne: —and that last year the deficit was £412 million? Is this not a disgraceful result of a promise made by a bankrupt Prime Minister?

Mr. Stewart: The figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers are, of course, public knowledge. That is why some of my hon. Friends were a little impatient with his taking up time by repeating them. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has never disguised from the country the seriousness of its problems, which those figures illustrate. That is why he has taken firm measures to put the economy right.

Mr. Maudling: If these figures are common knowledge, why are the Government so cross with the Postmaster-General for telling the truth?

Mr. Stewart: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would try to get that one in. I have just said that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has never disguised from the country the seriousness of the country's economic position.

Mr. Cant: We all enjoy the new rôle of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) as a sort of Rip van Winkle, 1966 vintage, but would my right hon. Friend draw the Chancellor's attention to the difficulties being created for this country by the United States of America and to the fact that, while we have no objection to their ransacking the Eurodollar market to buy the best in European industry, we have some objection to their doing so to finance American capital investment at home, with its implications for rates of interest? Would he do something about that?

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who is present, will have noted what my hon. Friend said. Although it is entirely right to notice the figures quoted by my hon. Friend or indeed any other facts about the economy, nor should we deny that we have, in recent months, noticed a decided improvement.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Prime Ministers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries about the supply of arms to Greece; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
None, Sir. I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary told my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) on 13th March.— [Vol. 779, c. 352–3.]

Mr. Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend consider seeking an opportunity to persuade our N.A.T.O. colleagues not to supply arms to Greece under N.A.T.O. commitments until democracy is restored there? Will he confirm that there is no arrangement between this country and Greece to supply arms where they have not been supplied before?

Mr. Stewart: There have been no substantial sales of arms to Greece from this country since the present Government there came to power. One should say that one would not want to take action which would damage N.A.T.O. without bringing any help to the Greek nation.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Has my right hon. Friend seen a number of reports about British arms having been supplied to the Greek régime? Would he comment on that?

Mr. Stewart: It is not the practice to comment on particular transactions. I repeat what I said earlier, that there have been no substantial sales of arms to Greece from this country since the present Greek Government took power.

Mr. Ellis: What does my right hon. Friend mean when he uses the word "substantial" in this context? Is he aware that many of my hon. Friends believe that if there is a case for having N.A.T.O., it is that it is an organisation designed for the defence of democracy? Is it not reasonable to ask that, as there is no democracy in Greece, there should be no sales of arms to that country?

Mr. Stewart: If my hon. Friend will look at the membership of N.A.T.O. and

at the part which it has played in Europe in the 20 years of its life, he will, I think, agree that it does defend democracy.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 31ST MARCH—Supply [16th Allotted Day]:

Debate on the Annual Farm Price Review (Command No. 3965), on an Opposition Motion.

Remaining stages of the Nuclear Installations Bill and of the Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Bill.

Motion on the Tyneside Passenger Transport Area (Designation) Order.

TUESDAY, 1ST APRIL AND WEDNESDAY, 2ND APRIL—Committee stage of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, which will be continued on Monday, 14th April.

ON WEDNESDAY, 2ND APRIL, at Seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.

THURSDAY, 3RD APRIL—The House will meet at 11 a.m., take Questions until 12 noon and adjourn at 5 o'clock, until Monday, 14th April.

As the House is already aware, on Tuesday, 15th April, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will open his Budget Statement.

The general debate on the Budget Resolutions and the Economic Situation will be continued on Wednesday, 16th April, and Thursday, 17th April, and brought to a conclusion on Monday, 21st April.

Mr. Heath: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that in addition to taking the Parliament (No. 2) Bill on Tuesday and Wednesday we will also be taking it on our first day back after the Recess, on 14th April?
Secondly, I asked the Leader of the House to inquire last week when his


right hon. Friend would be making a statement about amendments to the Land Commission Act. Will he assure us that a statement will be made before the House rises for Easter?
Thirdly, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to report on his visit to Nigeria before: he House recesses for Easter?

Mr. Peart: To answer the right hon. Gentleman's third question first, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would like to inform the House about his visit to Nigeria. It is right that he should, and I sure that he will be anxious to do so.
To answer his second question, as he knows, this matter came up in debate the other night. My right hon. Friend will look into it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I appreciate that many hon. Members are pressing for new proposals. My right hon. Friend will have to consider these. I cannot be more precise about this or say when he will make a statement, or if he will make one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first question is, "Yes". I said that we would be taking the Parliament (No. 2) Bill on Monday, 14th April.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Motion No. 177, which was tabled on 25th February and is entitled "In Place of Strife and the Encouragement of Strife"?

[That this House notes that, whilst the Government are urging trade unionists and lower-paid workers to restrict their incomes, on penalty of legal restrictions in default, they are at the same moment in the process of preparing to increase the salaries of the chairmen of the nationalised boards by as much as 60 per cent. per annum; and feels that the present climate of opinion is not conducive to supporting salary increases from £12,500 per annum to £20,000 per annum and from £16,000 to £27,000 per annum, as this is unlikely to persuade the trade unions to accept the Government's incomes policy and their White Paper, In Place of Strife.]

As everything therein was correctly foretold—as was admitted the day before yesterday—would my right hon. Friend formally accept the Motion and thus save the time of the House?

Mr. Peart: I know that my hon. Friend is anxious to save the time of the House, but I am afraid that I cannot accede to his request.

Mr. Sandys: Since next Tuesday—I have given notice of this—I shall be seeking leave to bring in a Bill to secure a conciliation pause before strike action in appropriate cases—[Interruption.]—may I have the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman as to whether, despite the decision of the National Executive of the Labour Party yesterday, it is still the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to implement all the main proposals of their White Paper "In Place of Strife", and if legislation will be introduced this Session?

Mr. Peart: If the right hon. Gentleman will have a word with me later I will be pleased to advise him privately—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—but the answer to his question is: "Not next week".

Mr. Sandys: Mr. Sandys rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Sandys: On a point of order. Is it not an abuse of business question time—it is surely in the interests of the whole House that we should know what the Government's intentions are in relation to a matter which I shall be bringing before the House next Tuesday—for the Leader of the House to use that form of reply when this is not a matter for private consultation?

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House, like any other Minister, answers questions in his own way, even business questions.

Mr. Michael Foot: Since my right hon. Friend has made an announcement about the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, an announcement which will be unwelcome in all sections of the House, would he say what are his intentions about the Parliament (No. 1) Bill, which could extricate him from all these difficulties?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of my hon. Friend's views about the Parliament (No. 1) Bill. In relation to next week's business, however, I am concerned only with the Parliament (No. 2) Bill.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of


whether the Government intend to allow time to debate the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which dealt with coastal pollution, and provide time for a debate on the White Paper which the Government have issued on that Report? While I recognise that there are some legal difficulties in this matter, is he aware of the continuing pollution of our shores, not least at Broadstairs, and will he do something about this matter soon?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised, I accept that he has a strong case. He knows my interest in the matter, but I regret that such a debate cannot take place next week.

Mr. Shinwell: Has my right hon. Friend given further consideration to the request that has been frequently made for the Government to introduce a new Merchant Shipping Bill? Can he do anything along these lines next week?

Mr. Peart: I agree that my right hon. Friend has been pressing me on this matter. I am equally aware of the concern that is felt by many hon. Members about this and their desire that there should not be any delay in introducing the Merchant Shipping Bill. As has been pointed out, this will be a complex Measure. I am now, for the first time, being somewhat more specific on this issue and I am announcing the Government's intention to introduce the Bill later this Session, as soon as it is ready.

Mr. Turton: As the right hon. Gentleman appears to find difficulty in finding alternative business to put before the House, will he look at the five Motions that stand in his name on the Notice Paper on the law of Parliamentary Privilege? Is he aware that they have been on the Notice Paper for two months and that we always seem to adjourn just before this matter is discussed?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of what the right hon. Gentleman says, and it is true that these Motions have been on the Notice Paper for some time. I would like a debate to take place on this issue and on the whole Report, but I am afraid that one cannot take place next week. I assure the Father of the House that, like him, I regard this as an import-

ant matter, that I would like it to be debated and that I regret that that cannot happen next week.

Mr. Milne: Since statements made by both the main political parties this week have highlighted the importance of the principle of equal pay for equal work, would my right hon. Friend pay attention to Motion No. 205 which stands in my name and in the names of many of my hon. Friends; and can we have an early debate on the subject?

[That this House, bearing in mind the legislative programme outlined by Her Majesty's Government, particularly the introduction of a National Superannuation Scheme, calls for the ratification of the International Labour Organisation Convention 100, Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value, by Her Majesty's Government, and urges that steps be taken immediately to introduce legislation to give effect to the principle.]

Mr. Peart: I have noted my hon. Friend's remarks about Motion No. 205. Having announced the business for next week, it will not, I am afraid, be possible for us to debate that Motion next week, but I am aware of my hon. Friend's remarks.

Dame Irene Ward: Has the Leader of the House taken note of my Motion No. 240?

[That in the opinion of this House, in view of the Minister of Power's refusal to answer Questions on the shortage of solid fuel supplies in Tynemouth during Arctic weather when he answers Questions on shortage of gas and electricity supplies, he is discriminating against the provisions of one source of warmth; and in view of the advertisements by the National Coal Board to buy solid fuel, he will take steps to ensure that solid fuel is available and, if not, to answer Questions.]

Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to give me the necessary answers to the questions asked in that Motion? As I was not able to get a Question down to the right hon. Gentleman, I have obviously not given him an opportunity to answer me. Is he aware that if these questions are not answered I cannot properly protect the interests of my constituents, which is what I was sent here to do?

Mr. Peart: I am aware that the hon. Lady always seeks to protect her constiuents. She is an ardent supporter of of an area which I know extremely well. The responsibility in this matter is really one for local suppliers. However, in view of the importance of the subject, I will acquaint my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power with the hon. Lady's viewpoint.

Mr. J. Idwal Jones: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that a debate on Welsh affairs is not too long postponed? Does he have a date for a debate in mind?

Mr. Peart: We will have such a debate, but not next week.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Reverting to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear whether it is his intention to return to a discussion of this Measure after the opposed Private Business on Wednesday? For the convenience of the House and its staff, would he indicate on which of those nights, if not on both, he intends the House to sit all night?

Mr. Peart: I cannot be precise at this stage, but it is intended that the Private Business will be a delightful interlude between debates on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have asked him on two previous occasions when we may expect the Government's reply to the last Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries?

Mr. Peart: I hope very soon.

Mr. Godber: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that before the House rises for the Easter Recess we shall have a full report from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the Northumberland Committee Report on the foot-and-mouth outbreak?

Mr. Peart: As soon as the Report is published. I accept that this is a very vital matter.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend say when the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity will be making a statement on the recent Report by the Prices and Incomes Board on top salaries? Will he give an assur-

ance that before any decision is taken by the Secretary of State there will be a debate in this House on the Report?

Mr. Peart: I know that this is important. As soon as possible my right hon. Friend will make a statement.

Mr. Powell: The Leader of the House gave an assurance last week that before proceedings were resumed on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill a document would be available to the House. Can he indicate in what form it will be and when he expects it to be made available?

Mr. Peart: I understand that it is available now in the Vote Office.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend say whether any of the subjects he has announced for debate next week will give an opportunity for debating that very urgent subject, industry and employment in North-East Scotland, which is referred to in my Motion No. 233?

[That this House expresses its distress at the drift south from north-east Scotland of skilled craftsmen and other workers accentuated by the closure or threatened closure of Inverurie Locomotive Works, by the concentration of industry in Southern Scotland, and by the uneven spread of industry throughout the rest of Scotland; is of opinion that the future substitution of advance factories after the skilled craftsmen and other workers shall have gone south will be no solution to the relevant problems which by then will have broken up homes and inflicted loss and sorrow on the families concerned; and now urges the Government to use the advances of science, technology and communications to increase trade, industry, commerce and employment throughout north-east Scotland.]

Mr. Peart: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, we have had a debate on this matter. I compliment him on his assiduous pressing of the claims of Scotland.

Mr. Peyton: The Leader of the House was understandably shy about revealing in the business statement the amount of time which will be taken up on the Pauliament (No. 2) Bill. Is he able to overcome at this stage that growing shyness of his and tell the House how much more of its time is to be consumed in the Committee stage?

Mr. Peart: I was not shy, although I may be shy by nature. I made a rather precise statement when questioned by the Leader of the Opposition. I replied specifically. Let us see about the future, how we get on. Wait and see.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: May I draw the notice of my right hon. Friend to my constructive Motion No. 229 "The Unequal Society", which sets out the conditions under which a wages restraint policy might be practicable.

[That this House, noting that share values increased in 1968 by £12,500 million, that the Chairman of Woolworth's receives £877 per week and that there are 15 motor-car models selling well at over £5,000 each, believes that wage-earners cannot be expected to accept restraints until such time as the Government has drastically reduced the glaring, provoking and growing inequalities in our society; and further believes that a wages policy will become practicable when all remuneration is contained between a mimimum of £1,000 and a maximum of £10,000 per annum.]

If this cannot be debated next week, could it be debated in the week after Easter?

Mr. Peart: I have noted that Motion, but I am afraid I cannot find time for it to be debated.

Sir C. Osborne: Since the Parliament (No. 2) Bill does not appear to have one real friend in the House, why do the Government not drop it altogether?

Mr. Peart: It is not for me to get involved in arguments. I have announced the business. I know the hon. Member is in a minority on this matter.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In the Division Lobbies the hon. Member has been in a considerable minority. I listen to his advice, but not on this.

Mr. E. Rowlands: Returning to the question of a debate on Welsh affairs, if one cannot be held next week, will my right hon. Friend assure us that we can have one before the end of the Session? It was complained last time that the annual Welsh Report is 12 months old when we debate it.

Mr. Peart: I would be very sympathetic to having a debate on Welsh affairs.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Leader of the House aware that by occupying so much time on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill he is preventing debate on very necessary social reforms, such as the welfare of seamen, the Merchant Shipping Bill, the Seebohm Report and many other vital reports?

Mr. Peart: It may be that in debates on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill hon. Members will make their speeches very much shorter.

Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are grateful for his announcement that the Government intend to introduce proposed reform of to introduce proposed reform of the Merchant Shipping Act, but that concern still remains? Introduction is not enough. We want the reform to be carried on to to the Statute Book this Session. Can he say anything about that?

Mr. Peart: I think I have given a satisfactory answer.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House give me the same information which he has intimated he will give privately to my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)?

Mr. Peart: If the hon. and learned Member comes to see me I shall be delighted to give it.

Mr. Maclennan: Although not all my hon. Friends have displayed enthusiasm for reform of another place, most of us will be interested in the opportunity to debate reform of this place. Will my right hon. Friend give consideration to an early debate on the rôle of Select Committees?

Mr. Peart: There has been a debate on this matter, but, as always, if I could find time I would welcome a debate on it. I will bear this in mind.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Does the business announcement mean that the Government have no measures more sensible or relevant to the needs of the country to put forward on two days next week than the Parliament (No. 2) Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are drifting into merit.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Peart: The answer is, of course, that I cannot accept the hon. Member's viewpoint.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Referring to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, what did the Leader of the House mean, by the phrase "wait and see"? Was it intended as a bromide or, in the original Asquithian use, as a threat of using the Guillotine?

Mr. Peart: I should have thought the advice I gave about progress on the Bill was sensible. Let us wait and see how we proceed.

Mr. Coe: Will my right hon. Friend take note that many of us who support the Parliament (No. 2) Bill are glad that the Government are to press ahead with it next week in spite of the continual filibuster of a very small minority in this House?

Mr. Howie: If my right hon. Friend were to seize the opportunity to drop the Parliament (No. 2) Bill next week, which I think would receive wide approval even among those who have put in their applications, would this not give us an opportunity to debate the recently published excellent Report on the allegations made against the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir. G. Nabarro)?

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Peart: No, I do not want to get involved in that.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the Leader of the House aware that five months have passed since the Government announced their intention of setting up a Constitutional Commission and we still do not know the names of the commissioners? Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement on this next week and tell the House how many persons have been invited and have refused to serve on this Commission?

Mr. Peart: I cannot go into details, but I have sympathy with the hon. Member. I am rather impatient and will note what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there is grave need for this House and the country to consider

Britain's future relationship with Europe? Are we not to have a debate on this—if not next week very early when we return—perhaps based on Motion No. 226 in my name and a number of my hon. Friends?

[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to initiate a new phase in the United Kingdom's relationship with Europe on a broader concept than the European Economic Community, embracing the European Free Trade Association, and designed to establish a sensible relationship with Eastern Europe, and thus making a real contribution to European prosperity and understanding, and the cause of World peace.]

Mr. Peart: I know my hon. Friend's views on this matter, but I cannot find time for a debate at the moment.

Mr. Ridley: If the right hon. Gentleman fails to give an assurance that a new Merchant Shipping Act will be on the Statute Book this Session, would it not be more appropriate to put it down for Second Reading next week instead of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill and to put the welfare of seamen before the political chicanery of the Government?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are drifting into merits again.

Mr. Peart: I hope the hon. Member will not draw me into controversy. Previous Governments had opportunities to improve the merchant shipping legislation. I hope that this Bill will be a good one. It will be introduced this Session.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the Leader of the House aware that the "delightful interlude" which he spoke about next Wednesday concerns my constituency? A reservoir is to be put down in Rutland and it will involve the loss of a lot of agricultural land. To save myself from sending out a note to everybody who is interested in agriculture, can I say that I would be delighted if all the full-time Members of the House of Commons were here next Wednesday for that Private Bill?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the importance of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Mr. John Smith: Is not this business of the Leader of the House talking


privately to people going much too far. What is it that he wants to say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Streat-ham (Mr. Sandys) and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) which he cannot say to all of us? This is an important matter. We want to know about it.

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too critical when I say "Let us have a talk privately". The hon. Gentleman has seen me privately.

Mr. Roebuck: Has not the House had too much of this private consultation? Will my right hon. Friend look at my Early Day Motion No. 223, "Buying a Home"?

[That this House, disturbed at the rise in mortgage interest rates but unmoved by the argument of honourable Members who have been urging investors to place their money in unit trusts rather than with the building societies, and by those honourable Members who seek tax concessions for share-buyers, calls upon Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to bear in mind that most people buying a home on mortgage regard this as a form of saving for old age; and urges him to find ways of giving them further encouragement by reducing the taxation paid by building societies.]

Will he rearrange next week's business so that the House can have an opportunity of debating this issue and so that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to put the deliberations of the House on it into perspective with regard to the private consultations he has already had with savings interests?

Mr. Peart: I am afraid not.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the Leader of the House see me privately to hear what he should do to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill?

Mr. Peart: I should be delighted to do so, and I should take the opportunity to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman what I think about him.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Back to serious business.

ELY HOSPITAL, CARDIFF

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Ely Hospital, Cardiff, which has been presented to the House this afternoon as a White Paper, Cmnd. 3975. I apologise for the length of this statement.
The Committee of Inquiry was set up in 1967 by the Welsh Hospital Board, at the request of my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Health, to investigate allegations of ill-treatment of patients and of pilfering by staff which had been made by a nursing assistant employed at the hospital. The Committee was also asked to make its own examination of the situation in the hospital at the time of its inquiry.
The Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Geoffrey Howe, Q.C., has done its work with a thoroughness, fairminded-ness and humanity which must command universal respect. This makes it all the more disturbing that the Report is highly critical and will, I am sure, cause as deep concern to Members as it does to me. It is for this reason and because I consider that it should be used at once as a basis for remedial action that I have decided to take the unusual course of publishing it in full, omitting only the names of individual patients and staff.
The Committee finds, first, that most of the specific incidents alleged by the nursing assistant as examples of ill-treatment did occur. Secondly, the Committee finds that many members of staff in the wards made use of food supplied for patients, and that excessive quantities of meat were provided to nursing staff. These aspects of the Report have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Thirdly, the Committee finds that an atmosphere existed in which well-intentioned members of the nursing staff felt it hazardous to complain; two who did so had to leave the hospital.
Responsibility for serious deficiencies in standards of medical and nursing services and of administration is attributed to the senior staff of the hospital, to the hospital management committee and


to the Welsh Hospital Board. The Committee also criticises the present procedures for dealing with complaints in the hospital service as a whole. And finally the Committee recommends that a system of inspection of such hospitals is needed—the form of which it leaves me to consider.
The House will, I am sure, wish to study the; Report before coming to conclusions. Nevertheless, I think hon. Members will expect me to say today what the Government's attitude to it is. As the Minister responsible, I accept the Committee's findings and recommendations about Ely. I add, however, that it would be quite wrong to draw conclusions about the standard of care in long-stay hospitals from these findings. I would remind the House that these findings do not apply to the whole of the hospital service or even to the whole of Ely Hospital: they apply only to four wards and one villa for children. To draw general conclusions from this limited evidence would be quite wrong. Indeed, in the course of an extensive series of visits up and down the country I have myself been deeply impressed by the skilled and devoted service given by staff in long-stay hospitals, who have, all too often, been working for many, many years under heartbreaking difficulties, and I am very much aware that if this Report were published without a firm assurance of strong remedial action, it could shake their morale. In expressing my confidence in them, therefore, I at once add this assurance to them and to the House. The conditions which have existed for so many years to which many of them have been calling attention for a very long time and in which such grave deficiencies as have been revealed at Ely can far too easily breed, are fully and frankly recognised by my Department, and I am already taking steps to ensure that they will be dealt with effectively by the Regional Hospital Boards.
One of these conditions is professional isolation. The main recommendation of the Report is that a new system of regular visiting and inspection is needed. I agree. And while the details are being worked out I am setting up a small working party in my Department to analyse the knowledge already available on these hospitals, and to supplement this survey where necessary with its own investigation.
Secondly, I have already asked each regional hospital board chairman to reassess the situation in his region and to present a report to me at our next meeting in April.
I hope the House will permit me one further general observation. We are in the midst of a medical revolution in the treatment of the diseases of old age and mental illness. As the span of life is extended, long-term, often permanent, hospitalisation, which only 20 years ago was the norm for these patients, is being replaced by intensive treatment given in short spells in hospital. In planning the Health Service of the future, therefore, we are able to assume a massive reduction in the proportion of hospital beds—and of long-stay hospitals—required for geriatric and mentally ill patients.
Unfortunately, this does not apply to anything like the same extent to the mentally subnormal. For the foreseeable future many thousands of them will need resident hospital care for very long periods; and this means that there is no prospect of doing without this class of hospital, which I am afraid still remains a deprived area within the Health Service as, indeed, it was long ago when the Service came into being. The advice issued by my Department in 1965 to stimulate improvements, which this Report commends, was a good beginning. It shows what can be done. These hospitals must be given their fair share of manpower and money, even if this means, as it will mean, a reallocation of resources within the Health Service. I shall be considering with the Boards ways and means of starting this difficult operation as soon as possible.

Lord Balniel: This is a very grave and disturbing Report, and the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to publish it in full. We must await our study before we reach a final conclusion. But what disciplinary action is the right hon. Gentleman intending to take following the Report?
We have considerable reservations about the system of inquiry which was set up after the allegations made in the "Sans Everything" booklet, partially because the inquiries have no power to secure the attendance of witnesses, and partially because there is uncertainty as to whether their function is an executive


function to secure improvements in hospitals or a judicial function to secure a judgment of allegations.
I welcome the decision to establish an inspectorate because this will be a mark of public concern for the inarticulate and unfortunate, and I believe that it will be of value not only to the patients but also to the staffs, the vast majority of whom are dedicated to the service which they render to the unfortunate. Is it the intention of the Secretary of State that the reports of the inspectorate should be published so that we can have a well-informed public discussion annually on the hospital service?
Does not the heart of the problem lie in the fact, as shown in the last Annual Report of the Ministry of Health, that the major building projects of the hospital service amount to £215 million while only £7 million is devoted to the building of psychiatric hospitals?

Mr. Crossman: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for the way in which he has listened to this extremely unpleasant statement. He asked me first about discipline. Consideration of disciplinary proceedings must be postponed so long as the Report is under consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I can say, however, that the charge nurse who was implicated—the nurse called "U" in the report—has been suspended pending these proceedings, and that the chief nurse in charge may be moved to another hospital. The rest of the disciplinary action must wait until the Director of Public Prosecutions has completed his consideration.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the system of inquiry. This is something which the Howe Committee made very clear to me. One of my aims in producing this new department for scrutiny is to ensure that we distinguish between scrutiny and the study of complaints. For the study of complaints, we may well have to consider the possibility of having a Health Services' Commissioner. I want to have a continuous scrutiny here such as other Departments have, although I do not like the word "inspectorate" because there is a long tradition of resistance to it in the nursing and medical professions. We have to think of an equivalent in terms of something that

they will accept and which the nurses will feel that they can go to without fear of victimisation.
I shall ensure that the head of the new department is responsible personally to me so that there is no doubt of the department's independence in the service. We shall have to consider the question of publication of the reports later, but I agree that we want to get the maximum publicity about the conditions of the Service—remembering that what we have to discuss today is, I am sure, an odious exception.

Mr. E. Rowlands: This Report is shocking and a tragedy for both patients and staff, perhaps most of all for those who were found doing what they were doing. The House welcomes the great candour with which my right hon. Friend has dealt with the problem and also his decision to publish the Report.
The disciplinary measures taken have been a specific action. What now does my right hon. Friend intend to do to try and restore the morale at the hospital? In particular, does he intend to announce any measures to improve the facilities there?
Secondly, while his new Working Party is trying to work out the new procedures of inspection and scrutiny, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the maximum co-operation and consultation is carried out with the medical and nursing staff in the service, because it is desperately necessary to restore the morale of the whole nursing staff in this type of hospital?

Mr. Crossman: A good deal has already been done at Ely Hospital, I am glad to say. First, the hospital management committee in question is being disbanded and a new one created which will include not only Ely but other hospitals together so as to bring it up to the level of the others. Of course, once the old hospital management committee knew about the situation, I am also glad to say that the hospital was given £10,000 additional revenue for this year and is being given £20,000 next year.
Thirdly, and not least important, a League of Friends of Ely Hospital has been started locally. Half the trouble has been lack of local contact, a certain isolation, and I am delighted that the League of Friends has been set up.
The nursing staff establishment has also been increased. The physician-superintendent has been moved elsewhere and the junior medical officer most severely reprimanded in the Report is leaving and a locum is taking his place. Drastic things have been done, but I remind the House again that what is involved is only four wards and one villa in one hospital, and I know that the House will want the hospitals to feel encouraged that these things will be put in order.
I could not agree more about the medical and nursing profession. It is no good simply copying other Departments. We cannot have H.M.I.s in the Department of Health. It is not the tradition. Whatever organisation we set up for scrutiny and advice must have the full support of the professions, and I shall be consulting the professions at every stage.

Mr. Turton: While appreciating the danger of drawing general conclusions from this unfortunate case, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not take the opportunity to review his policy of treatment of the elderly long-stay patients with a view to securing that they are not kept in large institutions very far from their own homes and visitors?

Mr. Crossman: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, he and I have a great deal in common in our general attitude to this subject. But the preservation of old hospitals remote from centres of population is one of the things we have to consider as a danger. We have a dual responsibility. We want to enable old people to live in their own homes if possible by providing good community services. But if they have to go to hospitals, they must be under the very best medical supervision. We must ensure that if possible.

Mr. Moonman: There will be considerable respect, both in the mental health organisations and in the House, for the Secretary of State's courage in publishing the Report in full. What action does he intend to take at the hospital itself to deal with the matter? How does he intend to ensure a proper feed-back? In view of the increasing number of people needing medical treatment—now one in 10 of the population—will my right hon. Friend seize an early opportunity

to make a policy statement on this in the House?

Mr. Crossman: It is not really for me to suggest what we should debate in the House, but the whole problem of long-term stay is something which I hope the House will take seriously, because it is a most tremendous community problem.
I must make a sharp distinction here between hospitals for the subnormal and hospitals for the treatment of mental diseases. The problems arise mainly in hospitals for the subnormal precisely because there is so much less that one can actually do in cure. There is not so much incentive in that sense for good doctors to be in such hospitals. So far as we can see, there is less need for anxiety about hospitals which are psychiatric in the sense of curing mental diseases.
I have given a list of the improvements made in Ely Hospital and have referred to the removal of certain persons. I think that the basic clean-up, if I may put it that way, which was necessary has been achieved. From 1st April next, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be in charge of the health services in Wales and will be answering questions on the details of Welsh hospitals.

Mr. Hooson: While reserving general comment until I read the Report, there is one matter of importance I wish to raise now. Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that two well-intentioned nurses who reported these matters were forced to leave the hospital? Were not these cases of victimisation? If so, surely these matters should be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions if morale generally in the hospitals and with regard to discipline is to be restored. If these two young men made complaints and as a result were forced to leave the hospital, surely the matter deserves investigation by those responsible for prosecution?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that this matter is for the Director of Public Prosecutions but rather for the administration, the regional hospital board. One of these nurses has been restored to a position already. I must say that victimisation of this sort is, among all the other things that I found in the Report, most odious and alarming. These


two nurses genuinely tried to complain and each in a different way lost his job. Victimisation of a nurse who wants to put things right must be avoided at all costs in working out our scheme for professional advice or scrutiny. It is immensely important to have a system whereby such people as nurses can make a case without fear of victimisation. This is the biggest single deficiency which Mr. Howe's investigation has exposed.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon Friend aware that autistic children who are often not mentally subnormal are often sent to hospitals for the mentally subnormal where they should not be, and where there is no treatment available for them? Secondly, when the inspectorate, or whatever it is to be called, is set up, will the inspectors pay their visits without warning to the hospitals for the mentally subnormal, and will there be an early visit to South Ockenden, from which there have been some very disturbing reports?

Mr. Crossman: The problem of the autistic child is very difficult. It is a problem which is to do with the psychiatric hospitals. Often we find at a hospital that the subnormal children are not strictly subnormal but are diseased in the mind and should be getting treatment in a special institution, such as the hospital next door, in this case, which was a very good psychiatric hospital. One of the problems is the contrast between the goodness of one hospital in the group and the weakness of another. As to South Ockenden, this is something which my hon. Friend should put to me by way of a Question.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the implications of the Report for administration? He has said that the difference between the good and the bad hospitals in a group can be considerable. Has he considered what changes may be needed in the structure of the regional boards, chairmen of the management committees and so on? Can he say whether he has any ideas in future to secure the high quality of public chairmen in the structure of the boards?
Secondly, does he really think it realistic to assume that he can get the money needed for this purpose, bearing in mind

the special needs of hospitals for the subnormal by switching within the Health Service? Does he not think that this requires a larger amount of money being put into the Health Service?

Mr. Crossman: I am always glad to have support for getting more money out of the Chancellor. As to the structure, it was interesting to me that the Committee specifically mentioned that in its view the tripartite artificial separatism of the hospital service, with G.P.s and the local authorities, was one of the causes of what happened at Ely. I only report the fact that those of us who favour a unitary service received considerable support from the findings of the Committee. I felt that it would be a help in our later deliberations.
On the subject of personnel, and I am glad the hon. Gentleman mentioned this, I have no doubt that the Minister must take responsibility for the fact that so much of the report is concerned with the inadequacies of people on the hospital management committee, which I do not directly nominate, and also on the regional hospital board. We have to face it, that if we have selection, and people are nominated, they should not be there for ever. They should not be regarded as permanent fixtures. We must get young, vigorous people who really will do a job. I take this as one of the personal lessons of this Report. What I have to do, and persuade each regional hospital board chairman to do, is to harden his heart and rejuvenate some of his committees.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the balanced responsibility of his statement and its perspective will give a great deal of satisfaction to thousands of mental nurses and other staff giving devoted service for the mentally subnormal? May I express the hope that the way in which the Press reports it will reflect that balance? Does he recall that in 1965, when regional hospital boards were instructed to restrain expenditure, the two exempted categories were mental health and geriatrics? In the light of this Report, would he add his support to the Parliamentary Labour Party's Health Group which is demanding a Select Committee on the National Health Service constantly to examine health organisation and its problems?

Mr. Crossman: I will give my support to any Select Committee which will investigate something I want investigating. With regard to 1965, my hon. Friend is quite right. In 1965 my hon. Friend the present Minister of Planning and Land gave specific instructions that special priority should be given to these mental hospitals, and hospitals for the subnormal. It is to his credit that the number of nurses has risen more sharply in our subnormal hospitals than anywhere else in the Health Service—from 12,000 to 14,000—and that the capital investment programme even though it is still inadequate, has gone up from its former miserable level. These are things which we started, and which we now need to accelerate. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend's other point. In deciding to publish this Report, despite the possible harm it will do to the patients, I was concerned with the public interest. The presentation of the Report by the Press will very largely determine whether it has a catastrophic result on morale in the service. I hope that the Press will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Dean: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this grave Report is bound to cast a cloud over all long-stay hospitals and those associated with them? In view of this, will he press ahead with all speed in establishing an inspectorate, which he is now proposing and which we have been proposing from this side of the House for some time, so that the overwhelming majority of staff in these hospitals, carrying out devoted service, will be given a clean bill of health? As to the hospitals for the mentally subnormal, will he bear in mind in his discussions the growing burden on the staff as the life-span of the very severely disabled is increased through medical science?

Mr. Crossman: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. In reply to his last point, we have not only the lifespan to consider, but we have to face the fact that in some parts of the country people are decanted into long-stay hospitals because they are an embarrassment elsewhere. We shall have to harden the hearts or strengthen the courage of those who run the hospitals, to refuse to overcrowd them. If we are soft-hearted and say that there is to be a fourth line of

beds in a certain ward because the local authority wants us to take more, we ruin the chances of these people who are resident there having a decent life. We have to lay down minimum standards for them and maximum numbers, and insist that they are kept, whatever the difficulties to the local authority.

Sir M. Galpern: My right hon. Friend has referred to the heart-breaking conditions that often obtain in these hospitals. Is he attributing the causes of these conditions to the boards of governors, the regional managers or the hospital staffs, or is he conveying to the House that there has been a sad neglect in the provision of reasonably modern conditions for the inmates of these hospitals?

Mr. Crossman: I hope that I have referred to the last position. In my statement I described these hospitals as still a deprived area within the service. They have been that ever since the service was started. We all bear responsibility for leaving it there, and unless we think of these things without blaming others we shall not get them put right. Public opinion has to face it, that if we are spending vast sums, as we are, on making wonderful new hospitals for acute illness and acute surgery, we must bear in mind the hundreds and thousands of people in these other places and realise that if the gap between them is intolerable then the danger of an Ely becomes greatly increased.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has asked questions about the South Ockendon Hospital. I have a constituency interest in that point. I must ask for your sympathy to be allowed to put my question.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman has a special constituency interest in this problem I think he has a right to put a question.

Mr. Atkinson: With regard to the South Ockendon Hospital, may I bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the case of a young patient who died on 22nd February as a result of violence? That boy has not yet been buried. His


mother is extremely anxious, not knowing what is happening to the boy. She has not been told, she only knows of his death. We cannot get anything from the hospital as to what is to happen to the boy, and the police say that they are not satisfied with their inquiries. There is no knowledge as to when his funeral will take place. May I ask my right hon. Friend to take some urgent action to look into this case and secure this boy's burial?

Mr. Grossman: Of course, I can say that the case is being looked into, but I beg my hon. Friend, if he cares about these things, to put Questions down as soon as he hears about them and not wait for a debate on another subject. South Ockendon must not be mixed up with it. This is a quite different problem, and I am looking at it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. May I raise a similar case affecting the same hospital? I have taken my right hon. Friend's advice and put down a Question, and I have written to him about it. I am still awaiting a reply. Will he please do something urgently?

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, and remember his letter to me. The case is being looked at with great urgency. I will give my hon. Friend a reply, but I am sure that he would rather wait for the proper reply than not have a thorough investigation.

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I stretched a point in giving the hon. Gentleman his

question. I hope that we can now get on.

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order. It is not good enough for my right hon. Friend to reprimand me—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. There are often differences of opinion between hon. Members who ask questions and Ministers who answer them.

Mr. Brooks: On a point of order—and I hope that you will regard this as a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my right hon. Friend has indicated that criminal proceedings are actively under consideration, it might be for the convenience of the House to have guidance on whether the Report will contain the minutes of evidence or other material which, if quoted outside, might involve certain legal difficulties.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, but a question that the hon. Gentleman might have asked if he had had the good fortune to catch my eye. Many hon. Members wish to ask questions on statements. I cannot call them all.

Mr. Brooks: Surely it is important that hon. Members should know whether, in comments they make outside the House, any references to, or elaborations of, points in the Report might involve difficulties in the light of future criminal proceedings?

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I heard the Minister, he did not indicate that criminal proceedings have begun. I leave it to the Minister, if he wishes to answer.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Mr. Speaker: Before we consider Lords Amendment No. 1, may I announce that I have not selected either of the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).

Clause 4

DISFRANCHISEMENT OF OFFENDERS IN PRISON ETC.

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 24, after "1957" insert:
or on a summary trial under section 49 of the Naval discipline Act, 1957".

4.22 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
When subsection (2)(a) was drafted no mention was made of persons sentenced by a naval commanding officer under Section 49 of the Naval Discipline Act, 1957. It was thought that such offenders were sentenced to short terms of detention, which they would not serve in prisons in this country. It is now known that it is the practice for them to be sent home to serve their sentences in civilian prisons. The Amendment is consequently little more than a drafting Amendment to remedy an omission from the Clause, which disenfranchises a convicted offender whilst he is serving his sentence in a penal institution—in effect, a prison.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: Is there a minimum sentence under such summary jurisdiction which is contemplated as being a disqualification?

Mr. Rees: I understand that this is simply a question of whether the sentence is served in this country. This affects registration and whether a person has the right to vote. We had to make the Amendment because it was our original impression that such sentences under the Naval Discipline Act would be served

abroad. The question is whether the sentences are being served in a prison in this country, as I understand some are.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6

OTHER AMENDMENTS AS TO PROXY AND POSTAL VOTING

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 5, line 23, at end insert:
( ) In section 23(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, as amended by paragraph 7(2) of the Seventh Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1958. the words ' rural district' shall be omitted.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The object of the Amendment is to provide for postal voting at rural district council elections. The Representation of the People Act, 1949, as amended, provides for postal voting to be allowed at all local government elections except, in England and Wales, elections of rural district, rural borough and parish councillors. The Amendment achieves its object by removing elections of rural district councillors from the exceptions named in Section 23 (7). It would have, by virtue of Section 23 (3), the effect of making it possible for qualified civilians to vote by proxy at those elections.

We had a great deal of discussion about this in Committee. The hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) and Petersfield (Miss Quennell) pressed their points in varying degrees and with varying interpretations of what should be done. I was pretty firm that nothing could be done, but we have listened very carefully in another place and to the Rural District Councils Association, and there is no doubt in my mind now that this amendment is sensible.

I do not want to be out of order, but I have been advised very firmly that this could not be extended to parish councils. I thought, "Having gone so far, why not go the whole way?"

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly out of order if he discusses that.

Mr. Rees: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I very much commend the Amendment.

Mr. Richard Sharples: When a similar Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) it received support from both sides. The main difficulty the Government foresaw then was that of administration, but the Amendment has now had the full support of the Rural District Councils Association, and I am and the House are grateful to the Minister for accepting the Lords Amendment. I think that he is right not to go any further, but this will no doubt be of considerable advantage in rural district council elections.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I too would like to say a word of thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for the careful consideration he has given the matter since we raised it in Committee and since further discussions in another place. I am glad that the advice of the Rural District Councils Association has been taken by the Home Office.
I thought that the case made in Committee was strong, but I understood that there were stronger practical objections, and I thought that we would have to wait until the Royal Commission on Local Government in England and Wales had reported before arriving at a solution. It is therefore with particular pleasure that I find that the Home Office has been able to accept the Amendment.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) about going further. I would have liked to go a little further for the sake of tidiness, but since you have ruled that we cannot discuss that point, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: As the point is an important one, perhaps I had better rule very clearly. Erskine May states, at page 577:
According to a long-established rule, the Commons, when considering Lords Amendments, may not leave out or otherwise amend anything which they have already passed themselves, unless such amendment be immediately consequent upon the acceptance or rejection of an Amendment made by the Lords.
That is why I ruled the Minister to be perfectly out of order when he referred to parish councils.

Mr. Lubbock: I should have consulted Erskine May before tabling my Amendments, Mr. Speaker.
I shall confine my very short remarks to the question of the rural district councils. It had always seemed to me an anomaly that electors could vote by post in the case of urban district councils, which by their very nature are more geographically concentrated, whereas they could not do so in rural districts and elections, where the need might be much greater, particularly for those who find it difficult to get to the polling station because of infirmity. The Amendment considerably improves the position for all those who live in remote areas and places where the unwell or infirm electors would otherwise be disenfranchised, as they have been ever since the 1949 Act. It is a minor but very useful Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8

PREPARATION AND CORRECTION OF REGISTERS OF ELECTORS

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 6, line 32, after "election" to insert:
(i) at an election to the Greater London Council (other than an election to which paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the London Government Act, 1963 does not apply to determine the electoral areas), £200 together with an additional 1s. 0d. for every four entries in the register of electors to be used at the election (as first published) and for any less number of entries above a multiple of four; and
(ii) at any other local government election,

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment provides a higher maximum than does Clause 8(1)(b) for candidates' expenses at Greater London Council elections when the London boroughs have been divided into single-member electoral areas for G.L.C. elections. Oddly enough, an Opposition Amendment for this purpose with which my right hon. Friend had great sympathy was, for procedural reasons, defeated. We sought another way of dealing with this in another place.

When the new single-member electoral areas, based on new Parliamentary constituencies, have been determined the average electorates of those electoral areas will be about 62,000, including persons of 18 years of age on the register.


On the basis of Clause 8(1)(b) the permitted maximum of a candidate's expenses would be about £550. The permitted maximum for a candidate contesting the same area at a Parliamentary election would be about £1,150; and he would be allowed free postage of his election address under the Representation of the People Act, 1949, Section 79; whereas the local government candidate would not. For an average-sized G.L.C. electoral area the amendment would produce a maximum of £975 which represents, my right hon. Friend believes, a reasonable compromise between the present provisions of the Bill and the legal maximum for Parliamentary candidates. There is a case for this different arrangement for the G.L.C. and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Sharples: We welcome the Government's acceptance of the Amendment, because this is an amendment which we put down during the Committee stage of the Bill, and against which the then Minister advised the House to vote. I do not recall any procedural difficulties which led the Government so to advise the House at that time. It was an absolutely straight Amendment but the Minister at that time advised the House to vote against it and forced it to a Division. We should be grateful to another place for giving this House and the Government an opportunity to consider the wisdom of the advice which was given to the House at that stage, on the proposal accepted in toto, that we put forward on that occasion.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: As I was one of those who helped to press this Amendment on the Government, as my hon. Friend has reminded the House, may I thank the Government for their belated, almost death-bed repentance. The merits of the matter are abundantly clear. It would be ridiculous to fight a constituency the size of a Parliamentary constituency on the expenses limits originally laid down in the Bill. I am very glad that the Government, through the intervention of another place, have put this right. Perhaps in another context the hon. Gentleman may reflect on the considerable merits of another place as at present constituted.

Mr. Lubbock: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether these new limits will apply before the Greater London boroughs are divided up into electoral areas. This is an important point, because as far as I can see at present the next G.L.C. elections, which are to be held in 1970, will be still on the old borough basis; unfortunately, in my opinion, because it is confusing to the electorate and all who have to take part in these campaigns. But I agree with what has been said on the wisdom of making this Amendment and I accept everything said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) about the wisdom of another place in giving us this second opportunity.
I want to be quite clear, as far as I can read this Amendment, that we shall not obtain benefit from it in the important G.L.C. elections which are to take place next year. It would be useful if the Under-Secretary could clarify that point.

Mr. Rees: If I have leave of the House to speak again, the hon. Gentleman is right in his interpretation. This provision will not come into force until the new single-member electoral areas have come into being. I am very grateful for the wisdom of another place. I would add that there were curiosities about the number of Amendments which were put down at an earlier stage. I can assure the House that the proposal in this Amendment was in the mind of my right hon. Friend, but this does not invalidate the argument that has been put forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 6, line 40, at end insert:
(1A) Where at an election a poll is countermanded or abandoned by reason of the death of a candidate, the maximum amount of election expenses shall, for any of the other candidates who then remain validly nominated, be twice or, if there has been a previous increase under this subsection, three times what it would have been but for any increase under this subsection; but the maximum amount shall not be affected for any candidate by the change in the timing of the election or of any step in the proceedings thereat.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I seek advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it would meet the convenience of the House if we could discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 20.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): If it is the wish of the House that that should be done.

Mr. Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Clause 13, makes provision for the procedure to be followed if a candidate at a Parliamentary or local government election dies during the course of the polls. The present law provides only for the procedure to be followed if a candidate dies before a poll has commenced, and the procedure is consolidated in Clause 13. But I am advised that the Bill is silent on the question of the election expenses of the surviving candidates. Under existing law the new candidate would start with a clean slate, but the candidates already nominated would not. They would be able to spend only such balance, if any, as was left over and above what they had spent up to the date of the abandoned poll.

On Report in this House the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) put down an Amendment to allow a surviving candidate to incur additional election expenses not exceeding one-third of the maximum to which he was originally entitled. I agreed to consider the point with reference, in particular, to the precise amount of additional expenses to be allowed. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, I hope, honour this undertaking, I would draw attention to three particular points.

The Amendments are made, not as was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam to Clause 13, but to Clause 8 to which—as dealing with election expenses—they are more appropriate.

A surviving candidate will be able to incur additional expenses up to the full amount of his original entitlement. For purposes of calculating the maximum for the entire proceedings, the change in the timing of the election would make no difference. For example, if there has been a change of register between the abandoned poll and the further election, the limit on additional expenses, like the original limit, will be based on the earlier register. This is the effect of the final words of the new subsection.

Amendment No. 5 applies the provision made by Amendment No. 4 for

additional expenses to ward elections in the City of London, expenses of candidates at which are dealt with separately in subsection (2) of Clause 8. Amendment No. 20 amends paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Bill and is consequential on Amendment No. 4.

Mr. Sharples: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not feel that I am ungrateful if I find myself in the position of looking a gift horse in the mouth. On Report we put forward an Amendment which would allow the surviving candidates in the event of the death of one candidate to spend up to one-third again of the election expenses which were allowed. In the course of the very brief discussion we had the hon. Gentleman said:
If the candidates who stand again in the second poll are allowed to spend a second lot of election expenses they will have an advantage over the new candidate".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th December, 1968, Vol. 779, c. 1450.]
There was some merit in the argument he put forward. It was for that reason that we put forward Amendments which would allow only one-third as additional expenses and not, as now proposed, that the surviving candidate should be able to spend twice, or in some cases three times, as much as the original expenses allowed. The House is entitled to be told why the Government rejected our reasonable proposal and have gone so far as to allow twice or three times as much.
We do not intend to vote against this proposition, but, in view of the Under-Secretary of State's statement at that time, it seems curious that the Government should have gone to this extraordinary length. It could produce an anomalous situation and give considerable advantage to the surviving candidates in the event of an election campaign having to be restarted as a result of the death of one candidate.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I say, with leave, that in the interim period we had a number of discussions with the various political parties. I am trying to think whether it would be in order for me to reveal what took place at those discussions. I will chance my arm and do so.
The Conservative. Party preferred the original proposal of one-third, but, I gather, did not object to half. The Liberal Party suggested a sliding scale


formula. I am advised that that would have had the opposite effect to what was intended. The Labour Party suggested the full maximum, or at least 75 per cent. of it.
Bearing in mind the various views and what was said last time, we thought that it would be better to fix the figure at the full amount of the original maximum. I accept that there are different views about the best way of dealing with the matter. I do not think that there is a precise answer which is absolutely correct. We took all the views into account and my right hon. Friend decided to fix the figure at the full amount of the original maximum I hope that the House will agree with this.

Mr. Lubbock: Since reference has been made to the views of the Liberal Party, may I say that I sympathise with the criticisms which have been made by the Conservative Front Bench. A campaign may have got halfway through and then a new campaign starts and candidates, including those who have previously been engaged in the electoral battle, will be allowed to spend the full amount of the expenses. That means that the candidates who remain in the field will have a. considerable advantage over the newcomers because they will have become known to the voters and their posters would have been displayed in the constituency and perhaps they will have sent out introductory leaflets. Under the Amendment, they will be empowered to spend double the maximum amount they would have been able to spend in a single campaign.
I will not vote against the Amendment, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has gone a little further than we intended when we discussed this matter in Committee. I should have preferred to see adopted either the Conservative solution or something along the lines of the proposal put to the Home Office by the Liberal Party. We can only hope that this proposition will not operate too unfairly.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment made

Clause 9

BROADCASTING DURING ELECTIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 7, line 41, leave out from beginning to "above" in page 8, line 9, and insert:
(1) Pending a parliamentary or local government election it shall not be lawful for any item about the constituency or electoral area to be broadcast from a television or other wireless transmitting station in the United Kingdom if any of the persons who are for the time being candidates at the election takes part in the item and the broadcast is not made with his consent; and where an item about a constituency or electoral area is so broadcast pending a parliamentary or local government election there, then if the broadcast either is made before the latest time for delivery of nomination papers, or is made after that time but without the consent of any candidate remaining validly nominated, any person taking part in the item for the purpose of promoting or procuring his election shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless the broadcast is so made without his consent.
(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above—

(a) a parliamentary election shall be deemed to be pending during the period ending with the close of the poll and beginning—

(i) at a general election, with the date of the dissolution of Parliament or any earlier time at which Her Majesty's intention to dissolve Parliament is announced; or
(ii) at a bye-election, with the date of the issue of the writ for the election or any earlier date on which a certificate of the vacancy is notified in the Gazette in accordance with the Recess Elections Act, 1784, the Election of Members during Recess Act, 1858, the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1872 or the Bankruptcy Act, 1883; and

(b) a local government election shall be deemed to be pending during the period ending with the close of the poll and beginning—
(i) at an ordinary election, five weeks before the day fixed as the day of election in accordance with section 57 of the Representation of the People Act, 1948 or in Scotland, by or under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947; or
(ii) at an election to fill a casual vacancy, with the date of publication of notice of the election.
(3) Subsections (1) and (1A).

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps it would be convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take at the same time Amendments Nos. 7 and 36.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House agrees, so be it.

Mr. Rees: These Amendments take the form of, first, a revised version of subsection (1) of Clause 9, with a new subsection (1A) clarifying by means of definitions the period of operation of subsection (1)—Amendment No. 6; secondly, a consequential addition to subsection (5) of Clause 9 which deals with ward elections in the City of London—Amendment No. 7; and, thirdly, a consequential Amendment to Schedule 4,
Insertions authorised in Representation of the People Act, 1949, in Revised Edition of Statutes"—

Amendment No. 36.

The purpose of the Amendments is twofold. First, Clause 9(1) of the Bill as introduced referred to a candidate's "consent" to the making of a broadcast, but did not set out how that consent was to be secured. Under the opening words of the new subsection (1), it will not be lawful for an item in which a candidate takes part to be broadcast if he does not consent to the broadcast being made. Securing the candidate's consent thus becomes a requirement of law. The duty of complying with that requirement will fall on those responsible for making the broadcast—that is, the broadcasting authorities. But no sanction or penalty is attached to this requirement and there is no question of the broadcasting authorities being guilty of an illegal practice if there is a breach.

I am advised that it would be extremely difficult to show that the words "it shall not be lawful" go so far as to create a statutory offence, and I am confident that no court would hold that they did so. It is doubtful whether anyone would be willing to bring proceedings against broadcasting authorities or their servants, or, if they did, whether a court would be willing to convict.

Secondly, the operation of subsection (1) is now limited to a precise period of time by reference to an anterior limit. Discussions have taken place with the broadcasting authorities, and in another place pleasure was expressed that the Government found it possible to introduce this change. As introduced, Clause 9(1) operated
before or during a parliamentary or local government election".

It was thus in line with the law on election expenses which, according to circumstances, may begin to operate well before an election is under way. It was represented, however, that this would impose too much uncertainty, and therefore restriction, on the broadcasting authorities. The fixing of an anterior time limit will leave them entirely free before that date, subject to their general duty to secure political balance. The question of political balance was dealt with more broadly during our earlier discussions.

The anterior dates fixed, and defined in the new subsection (2), are those after which there can be no doubt that an election is in progress. They vary according to the nature of the election.

The references to Bankruptcy Acts in paragraph (a)(ii) of subsection (1A) of Amendment 36 are necessary and not just whimsical because bankruptcy is one of the reasons for vacating a Parliamentary seat, and the Acts mentioned provide for the procedure to be followed by the Speaker in such an event.

The anterior date fixed in paragraph (b)(i) of subsection (1A) of Amendment 36 for a local government ordinary election—five weeks before the day of election—is necessary to suit circumstances in Scotland, where under Rule 1 of the Scottish Local Elections Rules notice of a local government election may, in effect, be given up to five weeks before the day of election. In England and Wales, by Rule 1 of the Local Elections Rules, it works out, in effect, at about four weeks before that day.

Apart from changes I have described, the general effect is the same as was that of Clause 9(1) as introduced. Personal electioneering is controlled, broadly on the lines recommended by the Speaker's Conference, in that a candidate is guilty of an illegal practice if
for the purpose of promoting or procuring his election

a candidate takes part in a broadcast before nomination day, or between that day and the close of the poll takes part in such a broadcast in which any other candidate neither takes part nor consents to its going forward without his taking part. News and objective reporting of candidates' activities, consisting of broadcasts in which candidates do not "take part", are not affected by the


Clause and remain subject only to the broadcasting authorities' own rules of balance.

There are two aspects of the change which merit discussion. The phrase "takes part" is similar to the wording used in Section 37 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963. That Section provides that a child shall not take part, among other things, in a broadcast performance unless licensed. In practice this is taken to mean that a television recording of a crowd scene or an activity involving children collectively is not prohibited.

In the Government's view, the same principle will apply to broadcasting at the time of an election. "Taking part" must involve active and conscious participation If the candidate is addressing a television audience through the means of the television camera, he is actively "taking part". If he is addressing his constituents and happens to be taken by a television camera while doing so, then for the purposes of the Bill he is not "taking part" in the programme. This is an interpretation which was put upon the words in another place from which the Government would not dissent. Read together with the other key phrase, "promoting or securing", the phrase "takes part" appears to provide a sufficient touchstone for distinguishing between personal electioneering and news and reporting.

The phrase "promoting or procuring'' is deliberately and advisedly taken from section 63 of the Representation of the People Act 1949, which deals with election expenses, in particular on propaganda and electioneering, and would, it is thought, be construed accordingly.

I am conscious that many other comments could be made, but the Amendment is the result of discussions and we have attempted to be as helpful as possible. The Clause is generally as it was before, but with added refinements which I think are helpful, and I commend the Amendment to the House.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): I am told that I must not vote against the Amendment; it has, apparently, been agreed by everybody except me. It has been agreed by the Central Office, by Lord Hill and by the Independent Television Authority, and apparently it is

generally commendable and absolutely intelligible to everyone except me. I did not understand it when I read it, and I understand it even less now that I have heard the Minister's speech.
As I am one of the potential criminals who will be committing an illegal practice if I do not understand it and get it wrong, I must say a word or two about it in considerably sceptical criticism. What do the words mean?
Pending a parliamentary … election it shall not be lawful for any item about the constituency … to be broadcast from a television … transmitting station … if any of the persons who are for the time being candidates … takes part in the item and the broadcast is not made with his consent …
According to the Minister, that does not mean that is an offence; it just means that it is not lawful. The Amendment continues:
… where an item about a constituency … is so broadcast pending a parliamentary.. election there, then if the broadcast either is made before the latest time for delivery of nomination papers, or is made after that time but without the consent of any candidate remaining validly nominated, …
These are the words of which I am afraid:
… any person taking part in the item for the purpose of promoting or procuring his election shall be guilty of an illegal practice
and so, presumably, is committing an offence.
Suppose that during a General Election I hold an election meeting in the Seymour Hall in the middle of my constituency and the B.B.C., for reasons of its own, wishes to broadcast that meeting and broadcasts a picture of me speaking—

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): Or a picture of the violence!

Mr. Hogg: The B.B.C. may even cause the violence. One never knows what is the cause of it, I have known some remarkable things to happen. If I am photographed speaking, I suppose that I am taking what the Minister calls "an active and conscious part" in the item—one hopes so. Must I be sure that all the other candidates have agreed to that before I allow the B.B.C. into my meeting?
This is wholly new. I do not believe this was contained in the Bill when it left


this House. I was not at all reassured when I looked up the debates in another place, because the Government, after having discussed it with Lord Hill, the Central Office, the I.T.A. and everybody except me, took advantage of the extraordinary rules of procedure in that place to introduce the Amendment on Third Reading, which meant that it was never properly considered and discussed. In a former incarnation I had experience of what goes on in another place, and I know that to be so.
If this is what we are being asked to do, and what has been agreed between Lord Hill, the Government, the Central Office, the I.T.A. and every knowledgeable person except myself, I am not sure that I like it, and I doubt whether other people whose meetings are sometimes broadcast by various broadcasting authorities will like it either. But I suppose if I speak in Bridgewater or Orpington this will be all right, even if the hon. Member who will then be a candidate does not like it, although it will help the Conservative candidate as much or as little as if I spoke in my own constituency on behalf of myself.
I am not happy about this, even though it has been agreed by the Government, Lord Hill, the I.T.A., Central Office and every knowledgeable person but myself.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 11

ELECTION AGENTS, AND POLLING AGENTS.

Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 9, line 17, leave out from "in" to second "or" in line 18 and insert
the constituency or one of the constituencies in which the area is comprised

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment. The words in the Amendment replace the words:
a parliamentary constituency comprising the area or any part of it
which are at present included in Clause 11(3) of the Bill as part of the require-

ments relating to the situation of the office of an election agent for a local government election. In particular, the word "parliamentary" is omitted; "constituency" on its own is sufficient, in view of Section 4 of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949. The additional words in the Amendment have been added in the interests of clarity.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13

COUNTERMAND OR ABANDONMENT OF POLL ON DEATH OF CANDIDATE.

Lords Amendment No. 9: In Page 11, line 6, leave out from "the" to end of line and insert "necessary modification"

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that it would be convenient to take, with this Amendment, Lords Amendment No. 10, in page 11, line 13, leave out from "apply" to end of line 14.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): If there is no objection, so be it.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: These are drafting Amendments to correct an error in the Clause as drafted. The modification mentioned in Clause 13(1)(a)(ii) does not spring from Clause 13(1)(a)(i) but from the opening words of Clause 13(1)(a).

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

New Clause A

PLACE OF WORK QUALIFICATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Lords Amendment No. 11, after Clause 14, in page 12, line 19, at end insert new Clause "A":
A. A person shall be qualified for election to and membership of a local authority provided that throughout the twelve months preceding the last day for nomination of candidates for the relevant election he shall have had a principal place of work within the area of the authority.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is one of only two Amendments on which we are proposing to the House that we should not agree with another place. I am sorry to do so. I have read carefully the debate which took place elsewhere on this subject.
The purpose of the Amendment, which was moved by Lord Brooke in another place, is, as it says, that a person shall be qualified for election to a local authority if during the 12 months prior to the election he has had a principal place of work within the area of the authority.
It was a very interesting debate in another place, and I can well see the difference of opinion which emerged there. It is a simple point. It is whether residence should be the sole and sufficient qualification for standing for a local authority, or whether we should add a provision relating to a principal place of work.
Although I read the debate carefully, I was not convinced by what was put forward. I stand on the principle that local government means local government and that it is the government of the place in which one lives. I think that it is right that people should stand for the area in which they live and not for that in which they necessarily work and in which they have an important but possibly transient interest.
As my noble Friend, Lord Fiske, has said, there is no need to decry the work of those who live in one area and work in another and who may have served on local councils for that reason. Certainly I do not decry their work, but this would be a new principle.
If one considers it, what is the major interest of those who live in one place and work in another? In the place in which they work, their principal interest is to keep down the rates, whereas those who live there are concerned with such matters as the amenities of life, the organisation of the local children's department and how much it should be given, and with street lighting and a great many other problems which do not concern the man who works there but does not live there.
For the most part, it will be those who have a place of business in the area in

which they propose to stand who will be concerned. There are exceptional cases, on which I will not expand too much, where there is a very large works which in certain circumstances could swamp the area in which the candidature is being sought. I can think of some examples of that, although they would be extreme ones. Nevertheless, it would be possible to have a council made up of people who live outside the area because of the great preponderance of one industry in that area.
On balance, I recommend to the House that we should stick to the well known principle upon which local government is founded, namely, that people should live in the area in which they intend to stand for election, because it is their basic duty to safeguard the welfare of that area in all its aspects and not merely be concerned with one or two aspects of life in the area. I believe, too, that we get the best all-round councillors from among those who live in the areas which they propose to serve.

Mr. Hogg: We on this side of the House lake a radically different view from that of the Home Secretary. I listened to his speech in an attempt to understand it, and I do not think I did understand the last part of his argument.
How can the presence of a candidate who happens to work at a big works swamp anything? If this had something to do with voting—that is to say, with franchise—I could understand the argument that the people who came there to work and would then have the vote might swamp local residents. As this has to do only with candidates and not with voting, the argument seems to be wholly misconceived.
I must recapitulate some of the arguments which favour the Lords' view of this matter rather than that taken by the Government. As Lord Stonham said in another place, the proposal in the Bill as it stands has been recommended by no one to the Government. It is clean contrary to the advice which they received from Lord Redcliffe-Maud, who was appointed by them for the very purpose of advising them.
It would have the effect of disqualifying 80 people who are now sitting as members for the London boroughs, 24


in the Birmingham City Council and 18 members in the Manchester City Council of all parties. In other words, it is a major blow against local government.
I can only draw an extraordinary contrast between the attitude of the Home Secretary in this matter and his attitude in some other matters for which he has been responsible. Many of these people who will be disqualified unless the Lords Amendment is agreed to—

Mr. Callaghan: We are not discussing that. That is a former proposition which is not before us now. We are discussing something new. It is not those who are being disqualified, but whether a new group should be brought in.

Mr. Hogg: But they will be disqualified unless the new group is brought in. That is the point. The Home Secretary cannot escape this. He has proposed a Bill to which he adheres in the face of public opinion, in the face of experienced local authority associations and in the face of a large amount of opinion inside the Labour Party, as the debates in both Houses have shown. When he is given a constructive suggestion by the other place based on and almost verbally copied from the Redcliffe-Maud Report, he says that it is irrelevant to consider how many people will be disqualified by his proposals who would not be disqualified by the proposal of the House of Lords. This seems to me to be what this debate is about—

Mr. Callaghan: My principal concern is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is getting very close to the bounds of order.

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker will look after them without assistance from the right hon. Gentleman, who does not like to be reminded of the offensive nature of his own proposals.
That is the contrast between the Amendment which we are considering and the Bill as it stands. That contrast is only heightened by the eagerness of the Home Secretary to blunder in before the Boundary Commission makes its proposals about local boundaries. Many of the people who would be allowed in if the Lords Amendments are accepted and will be disqualified if they are not are

people who live very close to the boundaries which will be altered when the Boundary Commission reports. But the Home Secretary is not prepared to wait for that. He is very keen to wait for it when it comes to redistributing Parliamentary seats. However, we must not discuss that now. His enthusiasm for waiting on one occasion and for blundering in on another shows that he is a better party politician than he is a Home Secretary—a view which I base not only on the present Amendment but upon this morning's newspapers.
The fact is that the hostility of the Government to the Lords Amendment is based once more upon their distrust and hatred of the electorate. One would think that the electorate would be qualified to judge somebody who works in the constituency and whom they know. However, if he is elected he is not to be allowed to sit, according to the Home Secretary, because he will be concerned to keep down the rates.
My grandfather's principal place of work was the Polytechnic. He had no more desire to keep down the rates of St. Marylebone, until he went to live there, than he had to keep down the rates of any other part of London. But he knew more about the social conditions and the people who lived and worked in St. Marylebone than most men. However, that kind of man will be disqualified unless the Lords Amendment is accepted.
The right hon. Gentleman is not really deceiving me. He may be deceiving his supporters, because they are not here. I do not know what he has done! But he is not deceiving me when he says it is too difficult for Government draftsmen to define what is meant by
a principal place of work
If the right hon. Gentleman can employ a Government draftsman to write the complicated gobbledygook that he has just sold to the Under-Secretary about broadcasting, he can employ a Government draftsman to define
a principal place of work".
There is nothing to stop him doing it, but he does not want to do it on any terms, however precisely it can be defined.

Mr. Callaghan: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wrote his speech before I spoke. I said nothing about any difficulties in drafting.

Mr. Hogg: I have not written my speech, as the whole House can see. It is not written at all, whether before or after the right hon. Gentleman spoke. It is not all that difficult to find arguments to defeat the right hon. Gentleman's case, even without writing them down. I am not, after all, an Under-Secretary. But, unless I am vastly mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman said that there was difficulty in defining
a principal place of work".
If he did not say it, the only argument presented in favour of the Government's attitude in another place now disappears. It is all the easier and more desirable to accept the Lords Amendment if there is no difficulty of draftsmanship. I am glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman has now withdrawn the mat from beneath his own feet.
Although this is not one of the great issues of our time, it is a thoroughly discreditable little piece of gerrymandering. It is all the more discreditable because it is small and mean and will prove ineffective.
I am glad that the Home Secretary did not try to sell us the outmoded nonsense about the elected Chamber against the other place. That, at any rate, is an argument with which we have not been wearied today.
I can understand why, on the polling day of three by-elections, the Government are unwilling to talk about their own position as an elected authority. They certainly would not be elected now if anyone was given the chance to vote against them.
I submit that the Lords are right in pursuing the advice of Lord Redcliffe-Maud, the authority chosen by the Government to advise them until he gave them advice which, rightly or wrongly, they thought would be hostile to their party interests.
When the Home Secretary speaks as a statesman and as a responsible Minister, I always listen to him with great admiration and respect, as I hope I have shown on many occasions during this Parliament since his appointment; but when he speaks as a party politician he deceives nobody, and he should not try.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Having had 13 years' experience in local government, I am pleased that the Government have seen fit to reject this Amendment from the other place.
A simple principle is involved here. If a man wants to be a member of a council, there is no reason why he should not live in the area of that council. If a town is not good enough for a man to live in, then it is not good enough for him to sit on its council. It is as simple as that.
I was interested in the argument put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). He said that by rejecting the Lords Amendment the Government were flying in the face of public opinion. I do not know what public opinion he was talking about. The only representation that I have had has been from one chamber of commerce. If there was a lot of public opinion in favour of the Lords Amendment, particularly in relation to "the principal place of work" which would allow people working in the area to stand, I should have expected large-scale representations from the trade union branches in my constituency urging me to support the Amendment. This has not happened. The only representation I have had has come from the local chamber of commerce. I suspect that the only representations to other hon. Members have come from local chambers of commerce.
It is fairly obvious that the Opposition are making such a fuss about the issue because they are being pushed from behind by their own supporters in the chambers of commerce, which do a lot, financially and otherwise, helping them at election times.
There seems to be no reason why we should support the principle of people being allowed to sit on a council and make judgments about all sorts of services when they do not use those services because they live outside the area. I hope that the Government will stand very firm on this matter.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I will briefly apply the experience of the City of Leicester in support of what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I will not follow


the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) because he has misconceived the whole argument.
Leicester is divided by an artificial boundary drawn and fixed by a Labour Government for—let us not mince words—purely political ends. The result is that we have an invisible line dividing communities. The council estates were brought within the city and the private estates were left outside. We can guess the reasons for this, but they misfired.
All those people living on either side of the line are part of that community. I believe that a man who lives five yards over the boundary but still directs and focusses his life on the city is more capable of representing the ward five yards away than a man who lives three miles away at the other end of the city, but within the city boundary, who is able to come over and stand for a ward at a remote part of the city from where he lives.
There has been a great body of support for the Amendment no only from the chambers of commerce, but from many quarters.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Could the hon. Gentleman name the quarters from which he has had representations?

Mr. Boardman: I have had representions from county councils, various local authority associations and a number of commercial interests concerned with the welfare of the city life with which they are connected.
If democracy means anything, it is that the electorate have a right to elect somebody that they want. Let them call the man who lives five yards over the city boundary a carpet-bagger if they wish and let them vote against him, but at least allow him to stand. To deny him that right is, in my view, a denial of democracy. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Lubbock: All things being equal, I am sure that the House would agree that it is better for a candidate to live in the area which he represents because he will be making more use of the services and, therefore, is likely to be in tune with the electors who support what he stands for.
Education is one of the most important services provided by a local authority.

For instance, if a candidate sends his children to the same school as the children who actually live in the borough he will be more sympathetic to the improvements in education that all parents would like to see. In the City of Leicester, of which the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) has knowledge, it is possible that in some cases a candidate living outside the city will send his children to a school within the city boundary. His interests will be identical to those of the people he is to represent, and I imagine that this must occur in many cases.
If, as a result of redevelopments in city centres, people who were formerly inside the borough go outside—I know that there are cities where this has happened to a great extent—they still make great use of the services provided by the local authority. In particular, if their children started at a borough school, in no case of which I know would the education authority ask them to transfer to the county. Once they have been accepted for a school, in order to maintain continuity the education officer is happy to continue to provide a place for them in spite of the fact that they have moved outside the area.
I have taken the view all along that all these alterations provided for in Clause 15 should be left on one side until the Royal Commission on Local Government in England and Wales has reported and we have much bigger electoral areas which will embrace many of the people who live just outside the boundaries of cities. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West said, some of these people may be only five yards on one side of the boundary but that will be enough to disqualify them from standing as candidates on the other side of the boundary even though all their interests may be there.
I do not wholly sympathise with the Amendment because I can see it creating difficulties in places like London or Westminster where a vast number of people come to work every day, far more than live in it, and we might get a preponderance of candidates who do not have interests which coincide with those of the permanent residents. But because the Government have been so adamant in resisting the idea of deferring Clause 15,


or that part of it which relates to candidates, until after the Royal Commission has looked at the matter and has advised us so that the House can take the necessary action, I intend to vote with the Opposition against the Government.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I cannot understand the Government's altitude to this Amendment. The Home Secretary talked about keeping local government local. Why not go a stage further and say that candidates must live in the wards they represent, and that Members of Parliament must live in the constituencies they represent? What the right hon. Gentleman is doing by trying to delete the Amendment is refusing to allow people who spend a lot of time in a city from representing that city on the council. Such people show a great deal of interest in how the city is run, they are anxious to serve the community, and they are prepared to give up a great deal of their time in doing so.
Has the right hon. Gentleman thought of the difficulty of finding suitable people to stand for election to local councils? We know that the Labour Party has an enormous reservoir of defeated councillors who are all too willing to stand for election because they have been swept out of office during the last two years, not because of their sins, but because of the sins of the Government. There are safeguards in the law. There are local selection committees which decide whether they want somebody in the city. As has been said, people have the choice of voting for somebody who lives in the city, or for somebody who lives outside it.
In 1967 in the County Borough of Dudley—part of my constituency is in that borough—a lady stood as a Conservative candidate. She had lived in the town for most of her life, but had moved outside the boundary just before the election. At the last minute the Labour Party sent out a leaflet warning people about her having moved. I am delighted to say that virtue triumphed and the lady won the seat, which was another Conservative gain. The electors decided that although she did not live within the county borough boundary she was a good representative to have on the council.
I hope that the Government will reconsider this and decide to act in the interests

of local government, and will not look at it from what they consider to be a politically advantageous viewpoint.

Mr. R. W. Brown: There is a marginal argument for saying that people should be able to stand for election in the area where they work, but I think that the overpowering argument is as my right hon. Friend has put it. Perhaps I should declare an interest. I had 21 years experience of local government, and, therefore, my experience is limited! I have never found it necessary for people outside the area to be drafted in to stand for election.
It is wrong to argue this issue on the idea of gerrymandering, because my right hon. Friend ought to understand that if he enters into a fight with the Opposition on the question of gerrymandering they start a long way ahead of him. They have been gerrymandering for a long time. The classic example is the 1963 Local Government Act for London. It was a most scandalous and disgraceful Act, and it was passed for purely party political reasons.
When we debated the Bill the argument was that a vast number of people would be lost to local government unless the Measure was passed. That argument has not been used today. It is the argument of the local government associations, and it is one that ought to be clearly understood. It is not a true argument, and it never was, to say that a vast number of people will be precluded from standing for election.
What the House ought to realise is that because of the 1963 Act, because of the gerrymandering of the party opposite, a vast number of people in London are no longer able to participate in local government. People who had served for 30 years and more in local government were no longer able to do so because of that piece of gerrymandering. When I and others pointed out what was likely to happen if that Bill became law we were told that it was not important if people were no longer able to be elected to local authorities; the important thing was to get the principle right. The principle, of course, was to make sure that the G.L.C. would be Tory-controlled, and everything that hon. Gentlemen opposite did was designed to achieve just that. I


hope that we shall not allow this argument to go on that people should be permitted to have more than their share of voting rights.
My local council has changed from Labour to Conservative. To try to get some sense into the standards of people serving there people from other areas have been drafted in to serve on the aldermanic bench. I cannot believe that anyone regards this as an improvement in local government. If the party opposite is unable to find candidates to represent it, that is its problem. We do not want to start mucking about with laws to try to help

hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I hope that we shall stand firm on this issue.

Anyone has a right to stand for election to his local council. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been trying to cause confusion by suggesting that we are disfranchising people or stopping them from serving the community. This is not true. Every individual has a right to put himself forward as a candidate for election to his local council, and this is the basis on which the law ought to be founded.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 202.

Division No. 133.]
AYES
[5.28 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Anderson, Donald
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Archer, Peter
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Ashley, Jack
Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Finch, Harold
Lipton, Marcus


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (lslington, E.)
Loughlin, Charles


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Luard, Evan


Barnes, Michael
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Barnett, Joel
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Beancy, Alan
Forrester, John
McBride, Neil


Bence, Cyril
Fowler, Gerry
McCann, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacColl, James


Bishop, E. S.
Gardner, Tony
Macdonald, A. H.


Blackburn, F.
Garrett, W. E.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ginsburg, David
Maclennan, Robert


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Booth, Albert
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Boyden, James
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brooks, Edwin
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Manuel, Archie




Mapp, Charles


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marks, Kenneth


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marquand, David


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hamling, William
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Cant, R. B.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Carmichael, Neil
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Maxwell, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hattersley, Roy
Mayhew, Christopher


Chapman, Donald
Hilton, W. S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Coe, Denis
Hooley, Frank
Mendelson, John


Coleman, Donald
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Millan, Bruce


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Crawshaw, Richard
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Cronin. John
Howie, W.
Molloy, William


Crosland. Rt. Hn. Anthony
Huckfield, Leslie
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)



Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hunter, Adam
Murray, Albert


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hynd, John



Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Neal, Harold


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Newens, Stan


Delargy, Hugh
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Noel Baker Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Dell, Edmund
Jeger, George (Goole)
Oakes, Gordon


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ogden, Eric


Dickens, James
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
O'Malley, Brian


Dobson, Ray
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Orme, Stanley


Doig, Peter
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oswald, Thomas


Dunn, James A,
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dunnett, Jack
Jones. Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Padley, Walter


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Jones, T Alec (Rhondda, West)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Eadie, Alex
Judd, Frank
Palmer, Arthur


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kelley, Richard
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Ellis, John
Kenyon, Clifford
Park, Trevor


English, Michael
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Ennals, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


Ensor, David
Lee, John (Reading)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)




Pavitt, Laurence
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Weitzman, David


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Rowlands, E.
Wellbeloved, James


Pentland, Norman
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Whitaker, Ben


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


Randall, Harry
Skeffington, Arthur
Wllkins, W. A.


Rankin, John
Small, William
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rees, Merlyn
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Richard, Ivor
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taverne, Dick
Winnick, David


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Roberts, Gwilvm (Bedfordshire, S.)
Thornton, Ernest
Woof, Robert


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tinn, James
Wyatt, Woodrow


Roblnson, Rt. Hn. KennethSt. P'c'as)
Urwin, T. W.



Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roebuck, Roy
Wallace, George
Mr. J. D. Concannoon and


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Watkins, David (Consett)
Mr. J. Harper.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McMaster, Stanley


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, Patrick


Astor, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maddan, Martin


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n& M'd'n)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maginnis, John E.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Glyn, Sir Richard
Marten, Neil


Batsford, Brian
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maude, Angus


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Goodhart, Philip
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bell, Ronald
Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cower, Raymond
Maxwell, Hyslop R. J.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos.& Fhm)
Grant, Anthony
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Mills, stratton (Belfast, N.)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear Adm.


Body, Richard
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Neave, Airey


Braine, Bernard
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Brewis, John
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Brinton, Sir Tarton
Hawkins, Paul
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward



Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Higgins, Terence L
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bryan, Paul
Hill, J. E. B
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Hogg, Rt Hn. Quintin
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Holland, Philip
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian


Burden, F. A.
Hornby, Richard
Peyton, John


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hunt, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Campbell, Gordon (Moray& Nairn)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Carlisle, Mark
Iremonger, T. L.
Pounder, Rafton


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Channon, H. P. G.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooke, Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pym, Francis


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jopling, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crouch, David
Joseph, Rt Hn. Sir Keith
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys willims, sir Brandon


Currie, G. B. H.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Dance, James
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Dean, Paul
Kitson, Timothy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Doughty, Charles
Lambton, Viscount
Royle Anthony


Douglas-Home, fit. Hn. Sir Alec
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Drayson, G. B.
Lane, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Eden, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott-Hopkins, James


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sharples, Richard


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh& Whitby)


Eyre, Reginald
Lubbock, Eric
Smith, Dudley (W'wick& L'mington)


Farr, John
MaAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, John (London & W'minster)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Stodart, Anthony


Fortcscue, Tim
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Foster, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Summers, Sir Spencer




Tapsell, Peter
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Taylor. Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Wall, Patrick
Woodnutt, Mark


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walters, Dennis
Worsley, Marcus


Temple, John M.
Ward, Dame Irene
Wright, Esmond


Tilney, John
Weatherill, Bernard
Wylie, N. R.


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)



van Straubenzee, W. R.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Capt. Walter Elliott and


Waddington, David
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. Jasper More.

Clause 18

TIMING OF ELECTIONS, AND OF STEPS AT ELECTIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 12, in page 14, line 14, after "means" insert:
any bank holiday not included in the Christmas break or the Easter break and ".

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 21. The purpose of this series of Amendments is to prevent the timetable at General Elections from being held up for more than one day by reason of bank holidays peculiar to Scotland, other than New Year's Day, or to Northern Ireland.

Clause 18 amends the provisions of the existing law for the computation of time for election purposes by introducing in subsections (2), (3) and (4) the concept of a "Christmas break", "Easter break" and "bank holiday break". A "bank holiday break" will normally consist of three days; that is, the weekday before the bank holiday, the bank holiday itself and the weekday after the bank holiday.

This will work well for bank holidays in England and Wales, where bank holidays are, by custom and use, treated as general holidays. In Scotland, however—and, to a lesser degree, in Northern Ireland—bank holidays, other than New Year's Day in Scotland, tend to be little more than days on which the banks are closed. In so far as bank holidays in Scotland and Northern Ireland are common with those in England and Wales, this does not matter. But there are certain bank holidays peculiar to Scotland and Northern Ireland which are not common with those in England and Wales.

These are, in Scotland—or will be from 1971—the first Monday in May and the first Monday in August; and, in Northern Ireland, 17th March, St. Pat-

rick's Day, and 12th July. It would be awkward if a General Election timetable in which one of these days fell had to be extended by three days throughout the United Kingdom instead of the one day which, particularly having regard to Scotland, is all that is necessary.

The Amendments to Clause 18 redefine a "bank holiday break" accordingly and the proviso inserted by Amendment No. 14 specifically applies the full bank holiday break only to New Year's Day and to bank holidays in England and Wales.

Amendment No. 21 is consequential on Amendments 12 to 15.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 16, in page 14, line 39, at end insert:
( ) In relation to the period within which any local government election is to be held, and in relation to the day of election at any local government election, section 295 of the Local Government Act, 1933, shall have effect as if the days mentioned in section 295(1) included any day of the Christmas break, the Easter break or a bank holiday break within the meaning of rule 2 of the local elections rules as amended by subsection (3) above; and in section 295(2) (under which, if an election is postponed, the day on which it is held is to be treated as the day of election for all purposes of that Act) the reference to the purposes of that Act shall include the purposes of the Representation of the People Acts.
This subsection shall apply to elections of elective auditors as it applies to local government elections.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a technical Amendment required to bring Section 295 of the Local Government Act, 1933, into line with the Representation of the People Acts, 1948 and 1949, as they have been amended by Clause 18 of the Representation of the People Bill. Section 295 of the 1933 Act deals with the computation of time for


the purposes of that Act, including local government elections. The provisions of the 1948 and 1949 Acts, operated on by Clause 18 of the Bill, also deal with the computation of time for the purposes of elections, including local government elections. As a result of the Amendments made by Clause 18, Section 295 is now in conflict with the relevant provisions of the 1948 and 1949 Acts. The Amendment will resolve that conflict.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21

SUMMARY PROSECUTIONS OF OFFENCES AT LOCAL ELECTIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 17, in page 15, line 29, at beginning insert:
(1) In section 155 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949 (which, in relation to parliamentary elections, makes provision as to the prosecution of offences committed outside the United Kingdom by British subjects or citizens of the Republic of Ireland) in subsection (I) the words 'so far as it relates to parliamentary elections,' shall be omitted.

(2)"

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Lords Amendment No. 22.

Amendment No. 17 extends to local government elections in the United Kingdom the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1949 (155) about prosecutions for electoral offences committed outside the United Kingdom. Hitherto the Bill has provided, in Schedule 2(20) for Section 155 to be extended to offences at local government elections in relation only to broadcasts from outside the United Kingdom. Such broadcasts are, by Section 80 of the 1949 Act, illegal in respect of Parliamentary elections; but Clause 9(4) of the Bill extends Section 80 to make it apply to broadcasts from outside the United Kingdom relating to local government elections.

It has been thought advisable to generalise the application of Section 155 of the 1949 Act to all offences at local government elections, rather than to make specific mention only of offences against Section 80, as amended by Clause 9(4).

Amendment No. 22 is consequential on Amendment No. 17.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS OF PARLIAMENTARY AND LOCAL ELECTIONS RULES

Lords Amendment: No. 18, in page 22, line 5, leave out paragraph 2.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment is concerned with the time allowed for the poll. There have been a number of arguments about this and it was said in another place that this was a matter for the House of Commons and not for the House of Lords, an invitation which fully understands the situation.

The basic argument behind our proposal is that people should have more time in which to go to the poll. This is the view of agricultural workers and it will clearly be of advantage to, for example, those on shift work. There can be no argument against the idea of allowing an extra hour in which people may go to the poll and, with that brief but, I believe, incontestable argument, I recommend the House to disagree with the Lords in this matter.

Mr. Sharples: The Under-Secretary assumes that there can be no argument against the Government's proposal. Does he really believe that no evidence has been produced to contradict his view? Is he aware that he has neglected Mr. Speaker's Conference and that it is a discourtesy to that Conference to say that no recommendation has been made which counteracts his argument?
The whole point of the debate which we had on a previous occasion on this matter was that Mr. Speaker's Conference, to which even the Government should pay some respect, recommended that there should be no change in polling hours. In that debate the Home Secretary was asked what evidence and considerations had led him to advocate a change of this kind. His reply was:
It was the Government's collective view, having discussed and considered the evidence, that there was a case for extending the time


to 10 o'clock."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1968; Vol. 775, c. 524.]
The Government were asked to state the evidence given to them. We wondered if they had received a recommendation for this change from the political parties or trade unions. In the briefest of replies on that occasion, the Home Secretary made it clear that no such evidence had been presented; that this was simply a Government decision, presumably made by the Parliamentary Committee of the Cabinet. Even hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke strongly against this proposal, but their opinions were completely ignored by the Government.
It is right that the other place should give us an opportunity to reconsider this decision. Certainly the Government should take this opportunity to explain fully why this extension of polling hours should be made. If a reasonable case exists the House will consider it, but we should not be asked to agree to this alteration merely on the Government's say so.
Both in this House and in another place arguments have been adduced about the increased burden that this change will place on those who administer elections. The Minister responsible in another place admitted that by increasing the total number of hours by one, from 14 to 15, difficulties would unquestionably arise. This matter must be more fully explained and I hope that the Government do not think that the Under-Secretary's brief explanation will suffice, even if the Government intend to force this decision on the House with the aid of the Whips. They do so against the advice and clear recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference. They do so in the knowledge that many of the most experienced hon. and right hon. Members opposite utterly deplore this proposal.

Mr. Lubbock: We can see how much support there is for this proposal on the other side of the House when we look at the serried ranks of empty benches opposite and when we consider the figures of the last Division.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Quality instead of quantity.

Mr. Lubbock: I shall wait and judge his quality if the hon. Member cares to make an intervention in this debate. It

is possible that he may put up arguments in favour of the Government proposal which we have not heard from the Front Bench, either in Committee or in the brief intervention by the Under-Secretary this afternoon. On 11th December the Home Secretary said that this conclusion was drawn from the political experience of members of the Government. He conceded that there was no bit of evidence, and that no representations had been made by outside organisations of whatever character, in favour.
In his single sentence speech this afternoon the Under-Secretary mentioned agricultural workers. I should like to know whether representations have been made by the National Union of Agricultural Workers and, if so, what form they took. If agricultural workers are employed continuously from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., something is wrong with the law. It would be monstrous if any worker were compelled to be on duty continuously for as much as 14 hours.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned shift workers. The Home Secretary gave an example of shift workers going to work at 10 p.m. and continuing until 6 a.m. That is a usual period for those on shifts. He suggested that it would be impossible for a shift worker who normally leaves home at 9.30 to go half an hour earlier so that he could cast his vote, although the Home Secretary said that he could drop into the pub or club and have a drink before going to work.
I should have thought that on the few occasions when we have Parliamentary Elections shift workers could vary their route and take in the polling station as well as the pub. It would not cause great hardship if they had to get up half an hour earlier. Most people who get up at 7 o'clock in order to vote get up earlier than we do normally. We face this happily as a public duty because we think that going to the polls is part of the electoral process. We are prepared to sacrifice a little "beauty sleep" in order to carry out that duty. I do not see that this would be any great hardship.
If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) can produce evidence from his constituents, or from letters to any hon. Member, to show that people were prevented from voting at the last election by reason of the hours being limited as they are at present, the House


would be glad to consider it. We could take that into consideration at the end of this debate, but so so far no hon. Member—and, I believe, no one in another place, though I have not read the debates there as carefuly as I ought to have done—has produced any example of people being prevented from voting in this way.
We have adequate provision for people who are prevented from going to the polls by reason of their occupation or employment. The long-distance lorry driver who would be away in the North of England and not be able to get home in time to cast his vote if the poll closes at 9 o'clock, would not be helped if the time were extended to 10 or 11 o'clock. That is why provision is made for him to vote by post.
The suggestion by the Government would mean very great difficulties and burdens being laid on the shoulders of returning officers, their clerks in polling stations, the party organisations and all who have to do a tremendous amount of work—and, my goodness, how we value it—at elections. We always thank them at the conclusion of the poll.
We shall lay this vast additional burden on them. That is not of slight importance when we consider that they will have done many hours already. This is so that idle or lazy people will not have to come out earlier. For their sake this vast disruption and discomfort will be caused to those who help us to run the electoral system.

Mr. Dunn: I hope that the Under-Secretary will resist any claim to alter the proposals made by the Government. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples), who said that automatically a recommendation by Mr. Speaker's Conference should be accepted. If so, many problems would be solved without the necessity for debating them.
In answer to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) I point out that people who live in conurbations outside city centres leave home early in the morning because of the distance they have to travel to work. In my city they have to travel for approximately an hour before they reach their place of employment. Often their employment starts at 7.30 in the morning, especially on the

dockside. Because of pressure of work in the docks, often on Thursdays and Fridays these men are required to work overtime until 7.30 p.m. If we accept this as a basis of measurement but do not apply it to everyone, a great number would benefit if voting hours were extended to 10 o'clock.

Mr. Lubbock: Would those dockyard workers know in advance that they will have to work that amount of overtime? If so, cannot they get a postal vote?

Mr. Dunn: They do not know in advance. I do not think they could get a postal vote because they would not be travelling to a place of work outside the area of the constituency. If we allowed such a postal vote I can imagine 10,000 dockers registering for it rather than being inconvenienced when there is the possibility that they would be called upon to work overtime.
There are a number of cases in which the extension of hours would be an advantage. I appreciate that such an extension might cause difficulty for those undertaking this task, especially returning officers, but there should be some way of relieving them during the day. I do not think sufficient evidence has been produced by returning officers and their staffs to show that it is such an arduous task that they are asked to undertake. In the same way that the hon. Member for Orpington suggested there is no evidence for the necessity for the extra hour, there is no real evidence to show that it is unnecessary.

Mr. Sharples: Surely the hon. Member knows that Mr. Speaker's Conference had evidence before it when it considered all these questions—evidence which is not available to this House? If he is not to take the advice of that Conference on a matter of this kind, he should at least produce evidence to contradict those decisions. Otherwise, what is the point of having a Speaker's Conference?

Mr. Dunn: I used my words carefully and I said there was no real evidence. Even now when these people work from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. many of them are off duty during the middle of the day. It is known that in those periods they are not required.

Mr. William Hamling: My hon. Friend knows that I was


born in his constituency and brought up there.

Hon. Members: How can he know?

Dr. Bennett: It was before his time.

Mr. Hamling: My hon. Friend knows that I lived in Liverpool in the dockland area for many years. It was often said by dockers that they were deliberately kept at work on the river on polling day so that they could not get home to vote.

Dr. Bennett: That does not happen today.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: This was said. Only those who are old enough to appreciate it can substantiate whether it is true. I say that generously to both points of view. There were one or two instances where candidates at local elections were subjected to pressure because of the casual nature of their employment. Thank God that those days have passed. I suggest that the additional hour will not impose a very arduous burden. I suggest that the evidence received by Mr. Speaker's Conference did not prove hardship. I hope that the House will disagree with the Lords.

Mr. Hamling: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), if anyone, should know that many people who live in his part of the conurbation of London travel very long distances to work, much further even than my constituents. I know from my experience that many of my constituents who travel to work to North-East London and North-West London get up long before 7 o'clock and do not return home until after the polling stations have closed, or perhaps only half an hour before then.
Why is not an elector, particularly a manual worker, entitled to come home, wash and change, and have a bite to eat before going out to vote? It is all very well to argue that people should put themselves out to exercise their civic rights. The House is under an obligation to make it as reasonably possible as it can for people to vote. It should not put obstacles in their way. It is all very well for people who work short days, as I did when I was a schoolmaster, or who live near where they work, to say, "If people work late or travel long dis-

tances to work they must try to make some other arrangement". It ill-behoves middle-class people who normally do not work such long hours as most manual workers do, to talk in the way that people have talked this afternoon. When many manual workers reach home they must have a bath and change before they can become civilised.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Before they can become civilised?

Mr. Hamling: Before they can go out into company. Surely the hon. Gentleman, representing Gillingham, should know something about smells. He knows that there are people working on the Medway with all sorts of cargoes who, on arriving home, must change their clothes, because it is unpleasant for them to go round in their working clothes.

Mr. Burden: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he assesses whether a man is civilised by the state of the clothes he wears and by the fact that he is a little dirty?

Mr. Hamling: No. I say that these men have a certain sense of propriety. On returning home they do not wish to stay in the clothes they worked in. Before going out to the polling station they like to change. They like to have a wash. Many of them bath first. This is my experience as the son of a man who worked on the docks. I know the great sense of propriety that these men have. They want to be decent and clean. Many of my constituents in Eltham who work on London Docks wash and change immediately on reaching home.

Sir Edward Brown: The conditions the hon. Gentleman is talking about which obtained in his father's time do not obtain now. There have been many Acts under which baths, washrooms and changing rooms have been provided. These people now change before they go home, so on leaving work they are ready to go to the polling station.

Mr. Handing: I only hope that the hon. Gentleman, who represents Bath, will go to the Royal Group of Docks and point to one shower bath or bath for the thousands of men working there. There is not one, and he knows it. The same is true of London Docks. The same is true of Liverpool Docks, where my


father worked. It is as true today as when my father worked there 30 years ago.

Mr. Burden: On a point of order. What has this discussion on the garb that people wear in the docks to do with the Amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I think that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) is making an incidental reference to it.

Mr. Hamling: I was also making an incidental reference to the interjection made by the same hon. Gentleman who is now trying to call me to order.
It has been alleged that nobody has made any representation. This was one of the main burdens of the speech I made on Second Reading. That is why I strongly support this proposal. I have been working in elections for well over 40 years. My experience teaches me that this is an admirable proposal which the House should support.

Sir Barnett Janner: Whilst sitting on the sidelines I heard the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) use an expression which I thought meant that if he was satisfied that even a few people would be prevented from voting, he would support the Government. In Leicester, West years ago the successful candidate, Mr. Harold Nicolson, was returned with a majority of 87 and stayed in Parliament with that majority for ten years. When I arrived there as a candidate I was given to understand that Mr. Nicolson would not have had that majority had it not been for the fact that some people who worked late were not able to enter the polling booths. If by this extension people were enabled to vote, as I think they would be, we should do our best to provide the opportunity to vote for every person who wants to vote. The illustration I gave is an indication of what might happen in the event of people being prevented by voting by 9 o'clock.

Mr. Lubbock: What date is the hon. Gentleman speaking of when these 87 votes made all the difference?

Sir B. Janner: 1935.

Mr. Lubbock: Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that hours of work

have changed considerably since pre-war. Although an Amendment of this kind might have been necessary in the 1930s, it is not necessary today.

Sir B. Janner: I assure the hon. Genteman that this happened. I cannot vouch for the fact that there would have been 87 extra votes if the booths had been open later, but let us suppose that there would have been one or two extra. The person might have been in the House on a very small majority, which might have been prevented if other people had been able to vote. On those grounds alone, we are entitled to say that we should extend the time to a reasonable hour, so that people cannot say that they did not have a chance to vote.

Sir Cyril Black: The trouble about the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) is that it is based on a number of assumptions for which there is no possible warranty. He assumes that if the poll had been an hour longer in 1935 in the West Leicester division 88 people would have voted for another candidate, and that therefore the candidate who was elected would have been defeated.

Sir B. Janner: What I said was that a large number of people came too late to vote, that if the poll had been later they would have had an opportunity of voting, and that therefore a person might not have represented the constituency in this House for 10 years on an 87 majority.

Sir C. Black: Of course. But the trouble about that argument is that it could be applied with equal force to closing the poll at 11 o'clock or midnight. The hon. Gentleman's argument has gone either too far or not far enough. Experience shows that whenever the poll is closed some people will come too late.
One must be reasonable in these matters and consider all the parties involved. I support the argument of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) about the burden imposed on those charged with the duty of conducting the elections. I have received a letter from the secretary of the branch of the National and Local Government Officers Association in my constituency asking me to bring forward its views when the matter is discussed.


Those views impress me as containing a great deal of common sense. The secretary wrote:
The members of my Branch have noted with regret the provisions in Part II of Schedule 1 … to increase the hours of polling so that the polling booths may be open until 10 o'clock at night. We have also noted that this provision was rejected by the House of Lords. As a considerable number of members of my Branch are inevitably involved in both the polling and the counting processes that follow, we have an interest in the number of hours these officers are required to work.
My Branch is of the opinion that the extension proposed in the Bill is an unwarranted addition to a working day which is already longer than any other. When one realises that many Local Government Officers on completion of their work as Presiding Officers at a polling booth are then required forthwith to undertake duties on the count which may well last into the small hours of the morning, one realises that the strain is already considerable and should not be increased; therefore, my Branch has instructed me to write to you asking that when this matter is returned to the House of Commons you will support the rejection of Paragraph 2 of Part II of Schedule I.

I am very glad on this occasion to be able to agree entirely with the national and local government officers in my constituency, and I propose to vote in the way they have asked me to.

Mr. Dunn: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that the presiding officers employed by the local authority volunteer for such tasks in many instances?

Sir C. Black: I should have though that that was reason in favour of my argument rather than the contrary. I have always been concerned to ensure that people should not be required to work excessive hours. It is the duty of the House to protect workers who are liable to be called upon and required to work excessive hours. Therefore, I propose to vote for the hour of 9 o'clock and not 10 o'clock.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 202.

Division No. 134.]
AYES
[6.14 p.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Delargy, Hugh
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Anderson, Donald
Dell, Edmund
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Archer, Peter
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Howie, W.


Ashley, Jack
Dickens, James
Huckfield, Leslie


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Dobson, Ray
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Barnes, Michael
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hunter, Adam


Barnett, Joel
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Hynd, John


Beaney, Alan
Eadie, Alex
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Bence, Cyril
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ellis, John
Janner, Sir Barnett


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
English, Michael
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Binns, John
Ennals, David
Jeger, George (Goole)


Bishop, E. S.
Ensor, David
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Blackburn, F.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Evans, loan L, (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Booth, Albert
Finch, Harold
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boyden, James
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Brooks, Edwin
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Judd, Frank


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kelley, Richard


Buchan, Norman
Forrester, John
Kenyon, Clifford


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fowler, Gerry
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lee, John (Reading)


Cant, R. B.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lestor, Miss Joan


Carmichael, Neil
Gardner, Tony
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Garrett, W. E.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Chapman, Donald
Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Coe, Denis
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lipton, Marcus


Coleman, Donald
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Loughlin, Charles


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Luard, Evan


Crawshaw, Richard
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Cronin, John
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McBride, Neil


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
McCann, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
MacColl, James


Dalyell, Tam
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Macdonald A. H.


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hartersley, Roy
Mackie, John


Davies, Ednyted Hudson (Conway)
Hazell, Bert,
Maclennan, Robert


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hilton, W. S.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hootey, Frank
MacPherson, Malcolm


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)




Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Paget, R. T.
Skeffington, Arthur


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Palmer, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie


Manuel, Archie
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Mapp, Charles
Park, Trevor
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Marks, Kenneth
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Marquand, David
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Taverne, Dick


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Pavitt, Laurence
Thornton, Ernest


Maxwell, Robert
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Tinn, James


Mayhew, Christopher
Pentland, Norman
Tomney, Frank


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Tuck, Raphael


Mendelson, J. J.
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Mikardo, lan
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Millan, Bruce
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wallace, George


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Randall, Harry
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Rankin, John
Weitzman, David


Molloy, William
Rees, Merlyn
Wellbeloved, James


Moonman, Eric
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Whitaker, Ben


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Richard, Ivor
White, Mrs. Eirene


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitlock, William


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Wilkins, W. A.


Murray, Albert
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Willsy, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Neal, Harold
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Newens, Stan
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Oakes, Gordon
Roebuck, Roy
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ogden, Eric
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Winnick, David


O'Malley, Brian
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Woof, Robert


Orme, Stanley
Rowlands, E.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Oswald, Thomas
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.



Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Padley, Walter
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Doughty, Charles
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Astor, John
Drayson, G. B.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Awdry, Daniel
Eden, Sir John
Jopling, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Emery, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Batsford, Brian
Farr, John
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kimball, Marcus


Bell, Ronald
Fortescue, Tim
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Foster, Sir John
Kitson, Timothy


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm)
Galbraith, Hn. T. C.
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Biffen, John
Gilmour, lan (Norfolk, c.)
Lane, David


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife E.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Black, Sir Cyril
Glover, Sir Douglas
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Blaker, Peter
Glyn, Sir Richard
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Body, Richard
Goodhart, Philip
Longden, Gilbert


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Goodhew, Victor
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gower, Raymond
MacArthur, lan


Brains, Bernard
Grant, Anthony
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Brewis, John
Grieve, Percy
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gurden, Harold
McMaster, tSanley


Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. SirWalter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall-Davies, A. G. F.
Maddan, Martin


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maginnis, John E.


Bryan, Paul
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, NAM)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marten, Neil


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maude, Angus


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Burden, F. A.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mawby, Ray


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Hastings, Stephen
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Carlisle, Mark
Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hay, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Cooke, Robert
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Costain, A. P.
Higgins, Terence L.
Monro, Hector


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hill, J. E. B.
Montgomery, Fergus


Crouch, David
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
More, Jasper


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Holland, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear Adm.


Currie, G. B. H.
Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hornby, Richard
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Dance, James
Hunt, John
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Dean, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neave, Airey




Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Ridsdale, Julian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Onslow, Cranley
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Waddington, David


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Royle, Anthony
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wall, Patrick


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walters, Dennis


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Scott, Nicholas
Ward, Dame Irene


Percival, Ian
Scott-Hopkins, James
Weatherill, Bernard


Peyton, John
Sharples, Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Pink, R. Bonner
Silvester, Frederick
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Pounder, Rafton
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stodart, Anthony
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Prior, J. M. L.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Woodmitt, Mark


Pym, Francis
Tapsell, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wright, Esmond


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Wylie, N. R.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)



Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Temple, John M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tilney, John
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Schedule 2

CONSEQUENTIAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY AMENDMENTS OF REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949

Lords Amendment: No. 19, in page 27, line 8, at end insert:
(2) In section 8(2) proviso there shall be omitted paragraphs (a) and (b) (which make provision against a person being registered as a local government elector more than once in any area or being registered as a nonresident if entitled to be registered as a resident).

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With Lords Amendment No. 19 I suggest that we discuss Amendments No. 31, 32 and 33.

Mr. Rees: Amendment No. 19 is largely technical, its purpose being to remove paragraph (a) and (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, Section 8(2) proviso. With the abolition of the non-resident franchise and the bringing of the local government franchise into line with the Parliamentary franchise, these paragraphs are no longer required or, as regards paragraph (a) in particular, workable. Amendments No. 31, 32 and 33 are consequential.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 23, in page 34, line 24, after "Schedule 2" insert:
and rule 41(4) of the local election rules in Schedule 3

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Paragraph 31 of Schedule 2 provides for the omission from Parliamentary Elections Rule 48(4) and Local Elections Rule 43(5), in Schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act, 1949, of the concluding words which enable a counting agent to copy the statement of rejected ballot papers. It is no longer necessary to give this right to counting agents because paragraph 13(4) of Schedule 1 provides for such a statement to be published along with the result of an election.

The Amendment provides for the omission of similar words at the end of Scottish Local Elections Rule 41(4) in Schedule 3 to the 1949 Act. Provision for a statement of rejected ballot papers to be published along with the result of a local government election in Scotland is made by paragraph 13(5) of Schedule 1.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 24, in page 35, line 47, at beginning insert:
(3) In Schedule 4, in paragraph 2, for the words from ' any householder' to ' the agent or factor of any such person ' there shall be substituted the word ' persons ' ".

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: We can also discuss with this Lords Amendment No. 34.

Mr. Rees: Amendment No. 24 will enable Regulations, corresponding to Regulations 22 and 70 of the Representation of the People Regulations, 1950, to require information for registration purposes to be obtained from persons, other


than householders, and to make such persons liable to a penalty if they fail to give it.
Schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act, 1949, sets out the provisions which may be made in Regulations as to registration. To limit the area of the registration officer's inquiries to householders, as is the result, might reduce the registration officer's power too far. There are many people from whom he would require information for registration purposes, apart from householders. Examples are managers of hotels or of seamen's residential clubs—to go back to an earlier Clause—hotel administrators, occupiers of factories with resident caretakers, et cetera. This is an appropriate step.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3

REPEALS

Lords Amendment: No. 29, in page 36, line 49, column 3, at end insert:
Section 128(6) from the words 'The reference ' onwards".

Mr. Speaker: With this we can discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28 and 29.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment and those we are taking with it remove the following words from the particular sections of the Representation of the People Act, 1949:
The reference in this subsection to rules of court shall not include a reference to rules made before the passing of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.

There are no longer any such rules as are excluded by the subsection.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 30, in page 38, line 11, column 3, leave out "paragraph 2 "and insert" sub-paragraph (2)."

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment to correct a clerical error, I regret to say, in that part of the repeals Schedule dealing with the London Government Act, 1963. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Act of 1963 will be brought into line with paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to that Act, as is already provided for in lines 5 to 9 on page 38 of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amentments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Buchan, Mr. Concannon, Mr. Hogg, Mr. Merlyn Rees and Mr. Sharples; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to:—

To be communicated to the Lords.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967 that The Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act,1969.
2. Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act,1969.
3. National Theatre Act, 1969.
4. Genocide Act, 1969.
5. Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1969.
6. Horserace Betting Levy Act, 1969.
7. Derbyshire County Council Act,1969.
8. Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act, 1969.

DECIMAL CURRENCY BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

LEGAL TENDER

(1)
Coins made by the Mint in accordance with section 2 of the Decimal Currency Act 1967 or in accordance with the Coinage Acts 1870 to 1946 and not called in by proclamation under paragraph (5) of section 11 of the Coinage Act 1870 shall be legal tender as follows, that is to say—


5
(a) coins of cupro-nickel or silver of denominations of more than ten new pence or two shillings, for payment of any amount not exceeding ten pounds;



(b) coins of cupro-nickel or silver of denominations of not more than ten new pence or two shillings, for payment of any amount not exceeding five pounds;


10
(c) coins of bronze, for payment of any amount not exceeding twenty new pence or four shillings.



(2) In the foregoing subsection ' coins of bronze "includes threepences of mixed metal.



(3) Subject to subsection (6) of this section and to any direction given by virtue of section 14(5) of this Act, coins of the old currency other than gold coins shall not be legal tender after the end of the transitional period.


15
(4) For the purpose of being used for any payment in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section a coin of either the old or the new currency may be treated as being a current coin of the other currency of equal value.


20
(5) The powers exercisable by proclamation by virtue of section 11 of the Coinage Act 1870 shall include power to direct that any coins of the new currency made by the Mint in accordance with section 2 of the Decimal Currency Act 1967 other than coins of cupro-nickel, silver or bronze shall be current and be legal tender for payment of any amount not exceeding such amount (not greater than ten pounds) as may be specified in the proclamation.


25
(6) For the purposes of this section silver coins of the Queen's Maundy money made in accordance with section 3 of the Coinage Act 1870 shall be treated as made in accordance with section 2 of the Decimal Currency Act 1967 and, if issued before the appointed day, shall be treated as denominated in the same number of new pence as the number of pence in which they were denominated.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.35 p.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause restores, with one alteration, the original Clause 1 of the Bill which was, by some mischance, removed from the Bill during Committee proceedings. There is only one alteration in it, to which I shall come. When we discussed the former Clause 1, the Opposition members on the Committee objected to two parts of it. One was the part which continued to keep gold coins as legal tender, and the other was the absence of any specific reference to the retention of the 6d. As there is an Amendment to this new Clause dealing with the 6d., perhaps we can come to that when the Amendment is moved.
The alteration in the new Clause refers to the 50 new pence piece, which is now specifically referred to. The 50 new pence coin, which was not included in the First

Mr. Speaker: I have posted, as is my wont, a list of the selection of Amendments that I have made.

Schedule to the 1957 Decimal Currency Act, will be treated as a current coin of 10s., and it is proposed that it should be legal tender for any amount not exceeding £10. The Proclamation which determined the specification and design of this coin and gave currency to it was made on 20th December last. It also provided that the coin might be issued before Decimal-day as a current cupro-nickel coin of the denomination of 10s. Since the Committee stage we have given further thought to the legal tender limit for this new coin, and any other future high-value coin, for example, one which might be minted of 20 new pence and 25 new pence in a weight/value relationship and similar shape to the 50 new pence piece. The reasons for the increase in the legal tender limit from £5 to £10 are as follows.

First, there is the need to demonstrate that these coins are in a different category from the 5 new pence piece and the 10 new pence piece and second—and this is the main reason—the 50 new pence


piece should be used as much as practicable. It could be said that if in law as few as 11 of these coins could be refused, then the use of the coin might be discouraged We would not wish to discourage the use of it, and accordingly we have provided for a higher legal tender limit.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: The Minister of State has correctly recounted the history of this Clause. As he rightly points out, it effectively seeks to reinstate the Clause which was deleted in Committee, albeit with the particular alteration to which he has referred. It is right and proper that we should stress why we felt that the Clause, as originally drafted, ought to be rejected. The procedure that we have in Committee is one in which we seek to amend the Clause concerned and then decide, after the Amendments have been carried or defeated, whether the Clause is defective. We then vote accordingly.
At this stage the procedure is the opposite. We are now asked to consider this new Clause and we shall then seek to amend it later. In principle, it would be wrong for us to vote against it at this point, because we hope that it will be possible to amend it later, particularly when we come to the Amendment dealing with the 6d.
As the Minister rightly pointed out, our objections to the Clause, as it was presented in Committee, were twofold. First was the fact that it mentioned that gold coins should continue to be legal tender. We felt that there were a number of objections to that. Second, there was the question of the 6d., which it will be more convenient to deal with when we debate a later Amendment. I want to concentrate on the argument about the position of the gold coins, because although we have tabled an Amendment it will not be possible for us to debate this at a later stage as the Amendment has not been selected.
Perhaps I may say something on the difference between the Clause now presented to the House and that originally presented to the House at Second Reading and to the Committee upstairs. We appreciate the point that the Minister has made with regard to the introduction of the 50 new pence coin. This coin is likely to prove of considerable use and to facilitate cash transactions. But if as

low a legal tender limit were placed on it as the £5 originally specified in the Bill as it came before the House on Second Reading this would mean that one was limited to tendering only 11 of these coins. While as many as 19 or 20 of them would be fairly heavy to carry round, nevertheless it would be unfortunate if the legal tender limit were set so low that the use of the coin was inhibited. Therefore, we should not have any objection to the alteration embodied in this new Clause as against the Clause as originally presented.
I want now to look at the question of the legal currency of gold coins. We were disappointed at the fact that the Government have not reintroduced this Clause in such a form that the expression with regard to gold coins is deleted; because, as the House will now see, the Government's Clause suggests that gold coins shall continue to be legal tender and shall so continue beyond the end of the transitional period, as far as we can see. Our objection during the Committee stage arose from a probing Amendment which we put down seeking to delete the reference to gold coins. Originally, we had expected a fairly simple explanation from the Minister but the more we went into it the more our doubts were aroused with regard to the purpose of this part of the Clause.
First, we were surprised to discover that gold coins which had been minted by the Bank of England were apparently of considerably greater value than their bullion content. This was a point of interest to the Committee rather than one which aroused any feeling of concern. What we were worried about was the apparent inconsistency between the statement in the Government's original Clause that gold coins should be legal tender and the actual position as we know it to exist in this country at the present time. There are very considerable restrictions on the circulation of gold coins. These particular restrictions arise partly from the original Exchange Control Act 1947, and in particular from Sections 1, 2 and 3 of that Act; because this legislation limited the buying, selling and holding of gold coins. This restriction was further strengthened by the introduction of a Statutory Instrument in 1966 which was also concerned with the circulation of gold coins.
Effectively, what this legislation does is to provide that no one may hold more than four gold coins and may hold these four coins only if they had held them before 26th April, 1966. In other words, the holding of gold coins which had been minted after the date 1837 and their circulation were vigorously controlled. It was authorised by this House that anyone who happened to hold more than four of those gold coins, or happened to come into possession of any of them after the date I have mentioned, would be obliged to hand them in to an authorised dealer, who, in turn, would dispose of them. It was perfectly clear, therefore, that the effect was to prevent the circulation of gold coins as currency in this country.
Yet when we came to the Committee stage we were assured by the Minister that one of the main reasons why the Government wished to include this provision in this particular Clause was that if that were not done it would be impossible for the Government to prevent the counterfeiting of gold coins overseas—I believe he suggested in the Middle East or Italy—and that these counterfeit gold coins, being of higher value than their bullion content, might then circulate. The Minister asserted that only if these coins were legal tender in the United Kingdom would it be possible for the Government to take legal action against anyone who happened to be counterfeiting such coins. The Minister quoted in aid a treaty which he said enabled the Government to do this.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Amendment on gold coins has not been selected. I have allowed him to talk about the discussion on Second Reading but he must not pursue the subject in such detail as to make it appear that the Speaker has selected the Amendment for discussion when he has not done so.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Higgins: I am directing myself to the fact that the new Clause continues to perpetuate a reference to gold coins and arguing that there is some. doubt in my mind about the validity of the Clause, because I do not believe that it achieves the objective that the Government wish to achieve.

Mr. Speaker: We are each seized of the point that the other is trying to

make. I am only asking the hon. Gentleman not to go into too much detail.

Mr. Higgins: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I am only saying that it seemed to me that to reintroduce the Clause in this way was open to objection; and I thought it would be helpful to the Government to spell out what I believe is the objection since it is a point that ought to be considered in introducing the new Clause. The essence of the argument is that the Government feel they need to reassert what they believe to be the position with regard to legal tender of gold coins in order to prevent counterfeiting overseas. The Government have called in aid a treaty which we have subsequently discovered—the Minister could not tell us this at the time—to be Cmnd. 666, signed in 1929. The definition of currency in that treaty is given in Article 2 of it:
In the present Convention the word ' currency ' is understood to mean paper money, in other words bank notes, and metallic money the circulation of which is legally authorised.
It seems to me that this definition of currency as used in the treaty is quite inconsistent with the way in which gold coins are to be treated today, and, therefore, the Government cannot rely on the provisions of this treaty. Nor can they, by introducing this new Clause, seek to establish a protection which I do not believe they actually have. The Minister asserts that there have been cases brought under the treaty and that these have been successful.
To summarise, I do not see how the Government can assert in the new Clause that gold coins are legal currency and that they conform to the definition given in Article 2 of the treaty, and, therefore, have the protection which the Government assert they have. Clearly, it would be wrong, in my submission, to pass the new Clause if that is the case and if the Government's view of the true position is wrong.
I believe we were right to oppose the Clause in Committee and to reject the Government's argument, most especially because of the question of the 6d., but that is something to which we shall return and I will not delay the Committee further at this stage. I do hope the Minister can give us a better explanation of why the words referring to gold coins


are still included and have been reintroduced in the new Clause, because I believe the argument on which the Government base their case is erroneous. Whether or not they have succeeded in getting other countries to agree to the provisions of the treaty, the definition in it does not seem consistent with the actual status of gold coins in this country at the present time.

Mr. Taverne: I hope that the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) will not mind if I answer his points very briefly.
With the Clause as it stands, there is no change in the law whatsoever. If the words were left out, there would be a change in the law. Gold sovereigns and gold coins are legal tender under the Coinage Act, 1870, and if these words were not in they would cease to be legal tender under that Act. If it were felt desirable at any stage that a gold coin should no longer be legal tender, the matter could be dealt with by proclamation, and it could be demonetised at any time without any fuss or need for statutory amendment.
The Bill is not the occasion for altering the status of gold coins. Having gold coins as legal tender is of value to this country because it is possible for the Bank of England to meet the occasional demand for gold sovereigns to the benefit of our balance of payments. I should have thought that that was a good reason for keeping them. If the coins were no longer legal tender, it would, at the lowest, make the task of counterfeiters abroad much easier. It has been possible to launch successful prosecutions against counterfeiters on the basis that gold sovereigns were legal tender.

Mr. Higgins: Is the Minister of State asserting that gold coins are currency within the meaning of the definition in the treaty which I have quoted?

Mr. Taverne: This matter has been decided by a number of foreign countries. I do not wish to go into the question of the interpretation which should be given to the treaty, but when it has been examined the courts have been satisfied that its protection extended to gold sovereigns. A vital part of the argument was that they were still legal tender under the Coinage Act, 1870, and

evidence was produced before the courts that the 1870 Act was on the Statute Book and had not been repealed. It is, therefore, the protection afforded to gold sovereigns which maintains the value of gold sovereigns, which helps our balance of payments.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Before the Bill was introduced, I had a long chat with the Financial Secretary about possible amendments to the Coinage Acts, the 1870 Act being the principal Act, because it occurred to me that the opportunity might be taken in conjunction with this legislation to consolidate all the previous Acts in one Measure. The Financial Secretary accepted that if this were to be done it would be better to do it by separate legislation.
When the question of gold coins arose in our discussion, I made the same proposal as the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). We had a considerable discussion on it, and, in the light of what the Financial Secretary said, I accepted that there were great advantages in retaining the present position, clumsy though it may seem, considering that gold coins would never in practice be used as a medium of exchange. The fact that gold coins are worth more than the metal content is an advantage, and, therefore, they bring some benefit to our balance of payments. This is a very important argument.

The question of whether the treaty to which reference has been made remains in effect has been tested comparatively recently in foreign courts. The example which the Financial Secretary gave me was Italy, where somebody began to counterfeit on a fairly large scale. It was drawn to the attention of the Italian authorities, a prosecution ensued, and the counterfeiter was convicted. That was an end of the matter.

We have this protection which, according to the legal experts, can be retained only as long as gold coins are legal tender. While it may seem an old-fashioned and ridiculous anomaly to pretend that these gold coins are legal tender, there would be practical consequences if we were to alter the law. It is, therefore, better to leave it as it is.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Higgins: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 13, after 'Act', insert
with the exception of 6d. pieces'

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take

Two-and-a-half new pence
2·82759 1·9405
Three-quarters copper, one-quarter nickel
·0188

and Amendment No. new 10, the proposed Schedule:
Further Amendment of Decimal Currency Act 1967
Schedule 1 to the Decimal Currency Act 1967 shall be amended by omitting the row relating to Two new pence, that is to say:

Two new pence
7·12800 2·5910
Mixed metal, copper, tin and zinc
·1500

Mr. Higgins: As I said a few moments ago, we felt in Committee that we should do everything we could to retain the use of 6d. pieces, although in the form of a 2½ new pence piece, beyond the end of the transitional period. A Division on an Amendment similar to this Amendment in Committee resulted in equal numbers of votes being cast both ways, and the Chairman, being bound by tradition, cast his vote against the Amendment. However, we felt so strongly on this issue that we thought it right to regard the Clause as defective and to vote against it again on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
As the Minister of State said in Committee, the Government can by proclamation retain the use of the 6d. pieces in the way I have just suggested. But this is the prerogative of the Government and the Crown. It is not something that the Opposition can seek to do. Therefore, if we are to achieve our objective, the right approach for us is to seek to amend the Bill in the way we suggest.
Throughout our debates on the Bill not a single voice has been raised in favour of abolishing the 6d. piece, with the exception of that of the Minister of State and possibily one other. I therefore hope that we can examine the case on its merits. I wish to say why I believe it right and proper to retain the 6d. piece, although not necessarily far into the future or to enshrine in legislation a position which means that it must be retained in our currency until such time as further legislation is passed. The arguments in favour of retaining the 6d. piece beyond the end of the transitional period

at the same time Amendment No. 9, the proposed new Schedule entitled:
Amendment on Decimal Currency Act 1967
Schedule 1 to the Decimal Currency Act 1967 shall be amended by adding after the entry relating to Five new pence the entry:

are overwhelming, and I should have thought they commended themselves to common sense.

The Government have put forward only one argument for their belief that the 6d. piece should be abolished. The reason why they have, unfortunately, felt obliged to defend the abolition of the 6d. piece is in many ways accidental. When we debated the original Decimal Currency Act two years ago, the great debate was on the case for the £ system as against the 10s. system. Many of us on this side of the House, although we took no party line, believed that the strong case was for the 10s. system. One of the main reasons why we thought that the 10s. system should be adopted was that, naturally, it would have a 6d. in it. On the other hand, the Government eventually carried the proposal for a £1 system. We are now necessarily bound to that system, and the matter must be debated within that context.

7.0 p.m.

At the time when the 1966 Act was going through the House the retention of the 6d. if the £1 system were adopted was not considered seriously. It was used as an argument in the discussion of the merits of one system against another. There is no reason why the 6d. should not be retained with the £1 system.

Mr. Lubbock: I cannot give the reference, but I remember an occasion on which I argued this case very strongly. I pointed out that if the 6d. were not retained, all the telephone boxes would have to be altered at great expense to the G.P.O.

Mr. Higgins: That was not the point I was making. I was saying that the argument about the 6d. was tied up with the argument for the 10s. system rather than with the argument that the 6d. could be kept under either system. Although for better or for worse, we have adopted the £1 system, there is no reason why we should, in addition, abolish the 6d. We should come to this with fresh minds, and it is not too late to alter the decision of the House.
The main argument of the Government has always been based on the experiment which was carried out before the Halsbury Committee reported as a result of which it was asserted that the existence of the 2½ new pence piece in the system would lead to confusion in cash and other transactions. This was on the basis of a small sample in an experiment which was conducted under somewhat artificial conditions.
A secondary argument of the Government was that there were ideal sequences of denominations, and this argument was spelt out in detail on page 92 of the Halsbury Committee's Report. It was conceded that the 2½ new pence piece—that is to say, the 6d.—could be retained in the system if there were no 2 new pence piece, or, alternatively, that there could be an ideal system under which there was a 2 new pence piece but not a 2½ new pence piece. This concept is somewhat metaphysical, and we must look at the matter from a practical point of view. While a system containing both a 2 new pence piece and a 2½ new pence piece would not fall within this so-called ideal, I do not see why both coins should not be kept for a certain period of time because of the overwhelming advantages which I shall mention later. The Government's case has been largely based on this two-pronged argument, the sample survey and the ideal sequence of denominations.
I come now to a point which I have not previously referred to. A report of the Bank of England, which is set out on page 234 of the Halsbury Committee's Report, points out that it is possible to include the 6d. in the £1 system. Indeed, this is argued as one reason why the £1 system should be adopted.
The positive arguments for the retention of the 6d. are fourfold. First, there is the simple argument of the cost of

creating the new coinage. By retaining in circulation the existing 6d. and calling it a 2½ new pence piece, the number of coins which it will be necessary to create is substantially reduced because the existing sixpences can continue in circulation.
Secondly, there is a considerable improvement in what is called associability in the transitional period and beyond. It is obviously easier to change from one system to another, and mental processes will be facilitated, if there are markers; that is to say, new coins similar in shape and size to the old coins. If the 6d. is abolished, only the 2s. piece and the 1s. piece, which will become the 10 new pence and the 5 new pence pieces will act as markers in ordinary transactions. If the 6d. were retained there would be three markers for the ordinary housewives to use as a means of relating one currency to the other. This argument will diminish in importance as time goes by, but it may be that there will still be confusion even at the end of the transitional period, and the retention of the 6d. beyond the end of the transitional period will facilitate this mental process.
Thirdly, there is the cost of conversion. A great many business machines and slot machines will have to be converted if the 6d. is abolished, whereas if it is retained the costs will be delayed. The machines would wear out and could be gradually replaced as they become due for normal replacement. This would represent an additional saving in real resources. If the 6d. is retained the machines will not have to be converted.
Fourthly, will the abolition of the 6d. lead to an increase in prices? This seems to me to be the probable outcome. On Second Reading I raised the matter of telephone calls. Some progress has been made on this, and we have had an assurance from the Postmaster-General that machines now being converted will be able to take a coin which is equivalent to less than the present 6d., although the length of the telephone call which it will purchase will be reduced. This is a sensible move on the part of the Postmaster-General. He is from time to time sensible about various matters. It is the minimum charge on such things as telephone calls that is important. We welcome the announcement that the Postmaster-General made some time after this matter was discussed in Committee.
It is likely that the cost of items sold through vending machines will be rounded up. Parking meters are likely to become more expensive. If the 6d. is abolished, the minimum charge for parking will tend to rise. Unless the Government are prepared to compensate them, local authorities will have to bear the cost of converting parking meters, and therefore to some extent the increase in charges will reflect an increase in costs which will be brought about because the 6d. has been abolished.
Those are four simple, straightforward arguments which have to be weighed against the feeble arguments which the Government have almost stumbled on by accident to justify the perpetuation of the decision which they originally took on this issue. I hope that reason will prevail and that the House will agree that the Amendment should be written into the Bill so that the 6d. can be retained until it finally falls into disuse, when the Government can act in the way in which they acted with the farthing.

Mr. A. H. Macdonald: I rise to oppose the Amendment, and I want to make one or two brief comments about it.
Right hon. and hon. Members will remember that the Second Reading debate took place fairly late at night. I had the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, but, although I had been minded to make some remarks against the retention of the 6d. piece, so late was the hour that I decided to cut them out and concentrate on other points which I wanted to make. Since then, the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has said again and again that no one on this side of the House spoke up in defence of the Minister. In view of that, I want to make it clear that I consider that we should not retain the 6d. piece for more than the transitional period provided.
Throughout my remarks, I shall refer to the coin in question as "the tanner". It will not be six new pence if it is retained.
I cannot help feeling that this constant hankering after the tanner stems from the feeling of many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in favour of the 10 bob system. However, I beg them to lift up their eyes from this rather myopic study

of the difficulties which will arise during the transitional period and look at the long vista ahead where we are seeking to establish a currency which will last for many years. Surely this should be our common objective.
In view of that, I believe that we ought to choose the form of currency which will stand up best in the long run. If that is easier during the change-over, well and good. If it is not, certainly we should seek to minimise difficulties during the transitional period, but we should not amend the system of currency in a way which will linger on when that period is over.
How does the tanner stand in the light of the long-term arguments? I cannot help feeling that there is a good deal of muddled thinking on the part of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. In Committee, I ventured to offer a few remarks against the retention of the tanner. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) immediately said that my arguments were rebuttable, because all that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were arguing was that the tanner should be retained for a temporary though unspecified period—say three or four years—after the conversion to decimal currency, and then we could look at how things were going and, if it proved useless, it could be abolished conveniently at that stage. Indeed, the hon. Member for Worthing has just said that he does not propose retaining the tanner indefinitely, but merely for a limited period.
I can understand that, but it is quite irreconcilable with Amendment No. 10, which we are discussing with this Amendment and which proposes to cut out the two new penny piece. I do not see how it can be argued that we want the 2½ new penny piece for a limited period if at the same time it is suggested that we cut out the two new penny piece as well.
In the new system, we shall have a two new penny piece. Why? How can it be said that we want a 2½ new penny piece as well? To come back to present currency, we shall be having a coin which is equivalent to 5d. It seems odd to argue that we also want one which is equivalent to 6d. If we were to establish a new currency without any reference to anything that we had before, no one would suggest that we should have


two coins so close together. Putting the argument in reverse, at present we have a 6d. piece, and no one clamours for a 5d. piece. It seems ridiculous to suggest that we should have the two coins together.
Turning to another argument against the retention of the tanner, I suggest that the retention of the 2½ new penny piece will diminish the value of the new system that we contemplate. The big disadvantage of the 10 bob system, as I saw it, was that, in the fullness of time, the lowest unit would become of little value. However, under the 10 bob system, it could not be demonetised, because it would be required to give change. We should have to retain this useless coin which would be too small to buy anything. That was the advantage of the £ system. If the time came when we wanted to demonetise the lowest unit, we could do it without difficulty, and it would not be necessary to keep it for change. If, into the £ system, we now insert the tanner which is equivalent to 2½ new pence, I seriously suggest that, when the time comes to demonetise the half new penny piece, we shall not be able to do it because it will still be required to give change for the 2½ new penny piece. So, with respect to the hon. Gentleman's quotation from the Halsbury Report, the 2½ new penny piece will seriously diminish the value of the currency.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it will be necessary to retain the tanner indefinitely for the purposes of giving change?

Mr. Macdonald: I am sorry if I did not make it clear. In fact, I was arguing the other way round. I was saying that, if we insert; the tanner, 2½ new pence, into the system proposed, it will be necessary to retain the halfpenny piece. Even though the time may come when we wish to demonetise the halfpenny piece, without such a little coin it will be impossible to give change for the 2½ new penny piece. Therefore, if the Amendment is adopted for the sake of making the transitional period that much easier—even though we shall be keeping the tanner during the transitional period, in any event—we shall be "lumbered" with these two fractional coins.
I think that we are in danger of forgetting the whole purpose of the exercise, which is to convert our present system of currency into a decimal system. The existence of a halfpenny piece is a blemish and it would be foolish voluntarily to add another blemish which we do not need to introduce. The halfpenny piece is a regrettable necessity, but we can do away with it. But why voluntarily add another blemish and forget the object of the exercise?
Even in the short term, I doubt whether the arguments for retaining the tanner are quite as strong as has been supposed. In view of the indefinite nature of the retention advocated by the hon. Member for Worthing, manufacturers of vending machines and other slot machines will be placed in great difficulty. If it is not clear how long, if at all, the tanner is to be retained, when they come to manufacture new machines they will not know what slots to put into them. If it is to be retained for a farily extensive period, it will be a little "dodgy" to introduce slots sufficiently clearly distinguished for customers to know which slot is the appropriate one for the new penny piece and which one is appropriate for another coin. Difficulties are likely to arise.
The hon. Gentleman advanced as a main plank in his argument the subject of markers. In my view, the retention of the tanner would be the wrong kind of marker. I agree with him that the five and ten new penny pieces will assist people to convert to the new form of coinage. But the advantage of that is that they convert easily to a decimal system. If we retain an additional marker with a fraction attached to it, it will not assist people. Indeed, because there is a fraction, it will present an added difficulty in encouraging them to think in decimals.
Thinking back to the arguments about telephone boxes and slot machines, I must admit that they are serious and weighty. But how far should we allow them to weigh with us in the long term? In a hundred years' time I trust that this form of currency will be working acceptably. How foolish and silly it would look if we adopted a form of currency that might be less than effective in a hundred years' time simply because it was more convenient to convert to it now.
I am sure that hon. Members have noticed some of the interesting letters


from practical people that have appeared in the last two or three days in the Financial Times pointing out that firms are already undertaking commitments on the assumption that the decimal currency is as set out. I was interested to see a letter the other day from a retailer pointing out that it seems difficult to suppose how the tanner, the 2½ new penny piece, will get into circulation. As the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) pointed out, people go into a shop with their pounds on pay day. If there are to be any halfpenny amounts it is almost certain that the change that the retailer will give will be the half new penny. It is doubtful whether he will give the 2½ new penny in change. If this is so, it is doubtful whether the 2½ new penny piece will come into circulation at all.
For those reasons, we would be wise to concentrate on the long-term advantages of the system proposed by the Government and to resist the introduction of an extraneous element.

Mr. John Wells: The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) has castigated hon. Members on this side of the House for apparently hankering for the 10s. system. He says that our argument for retaining the present-day 6d. piece, which he persisted in calling by the inelegant name of the "tanner", seems to show that we are harking back to a system which has already been condemned. But the hon. Gentleman is harking back entirely to this system when he says how inconvenient the new halfpenny piece will be and how inconvenient the present 1d. piece is, because, by implication, he is urging galloping inflation which will abolish the new halfpenny piece and, therefore, enable the pound and the new system to become realistic and reasonable.
The hon. Gentleman used the phrase, "We are setting up a system of currency which will still be working in a hundred years' time". I believe that we are setting up such an incredibly awkward and inelegant system of currency that it is extremely unlikely that it will be working in a hundred years' time.
I believe that I may have shown the hon. Gentleman in Committee the humorous medal which has been going around for some time dated 1971 which, on one

side, has the figure of a little Britannia, apparently in the likeness of some well-known person, sitting puffing at a pipe and, written round the perimeter, "25 cents or such lesser sum as I may determine". This is precisely indicating that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend puffing at his little pipe are advocating such galloping inflation that this system that they are bringing in —

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must now come to what the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) inelegantly called the "tanner" Amendment.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful for your reminder, Mr. Speaker. The point I am leading up to about the tanner is that it should be retained for at least a transitional period, because I believe that this currency which is being set up is likely to be a transitional and ephemeral currency. I do not think that it will last for all these years that lie ahead.
In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that the 6d. piece could be dispensed with. One of his arguments was that the "tickey" in South Africa had never really got going. I put the specific question to him but never got an answer then, so I ask it again in the hope that I may get an answer: was the "tickey" ever used as a parking meter or similar currency item? If not, then it naturally disappeared very quickly because there was no demand for it. It may have been used for parking meters, in which case the hon. Gentleman's argument may be valid. However, when he says that the "tickey" was abandoned rapidly and advocates this as an argument for abolishing the 6d. now, I question it. I should like a specific answer on that point.
The 6d. is used widely in parking meters. Hon. Members coming into the Chamber have been given a hand-out by the R.A.C. about this point. I was given mine only a moment or so ago. I see that a number of local authorities, according to the R.A.C, are already altering their parking charges in view of the proposal to abolish the 6d. I see that Maidstone is among those local authorities. This is news to me. Westminster, Kensington, Chelsea, Maidstone, Camberley, Gosforth, Glasgow and Perth are


among the towns and cities which are adjusting their parking charges' on the assumption that the 6d. will be abolished. This seems decidedly inflationary and hostile to the interests of the motorists.

Mr. Lubbock: Not necessarily.

Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman says "Not necessarily".

Mr. Lubbock: If they have to use the shilling, they could allow twice as long on parking meters.

Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Many people do not want twice as long. We had the same argument when the Post Office abolished the 3d. slot in telephone boxes and said that people could have twice as long for 6d. But, as we heard in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) can send the most loving messages to his wife for 2d. My hon. Friend is obviously a very accomplished married man in this matter. But many people wish to get the minimum time for the minimum unit. Therefore, I believe that the 6d., or the "tanner", could play a very real rôle in parking meters and so on for a long time to come.

Sir Douglas Glover: The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) talked about getting rid of the new halfpenny, which is the equivalent of our present 1d. Does he not remember —

Mr. Speaker: Order. It helps the Official Reporters and, indeed, the Chair if hon. Members debate through the Chair at each other and not directly to each other.

Sir D. Glover: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Your rebuke is more than justified.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) will realise that the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, ran a great campaign about the outrage of women having to pay 1d. to go through the turnstiles in certain establishments. The hon. Member for Chislehurst says that the new halfpenny should be done away with. A fat lot of use it will be for these ladies going through the various turnstiles to be told that they can have twice as much time but they must pay twice as much!

Mr. Wells: I do not wish to follow my hon. Friend in this direction at the moment.
Time and again the Government have propounded the argument—and the hon. Member for Chislehurst deployed it in part this evening—that having a coin which is the odd-man-out of a series is inconvenient for some reason. In our present system there are plenty of odd-men-out. The half-crown is an odd-man-out looked at in one way. Although France and other continental countries have had a metric and kilo system since the time of Napoleon, people still, generally speaking, buy butter by the demi-livre, which has nothing to do with a kilo. Because a unit of conventional trade is an odd-man-out within the Government's concept of tidiness it does not mean that it is necessarily a bad coin. I deprecate this inordinate desire for tidiness. It will do nobody any harm if the 6d. piece is left in circulation for a little longer. It might be of value. It might stem inflation by a little, if only for the motoring public and some of the slot machine vendors.
7.30 p.m.
I must repeat a thought which I tried to put to the Government in Committee. Some slot machines work by gravity feed while others work electronically on the fall of a much lighter coin, generally speaking the so-called silver coins. Our current copper coins work machines by gravity. If we are to have the 1 new penny, 2 new penny and 3 new penny pieces, they will probably be of the heavier kind which will work gravity machines. It will be extremely inconvenient if we do not have coins of a single style which can work as weight multiples of each other. I hope that the Government will look at that again.
Perhaps I might give one example from my specialist sphere, horticulture. In the past year we have had great difficulty in trying to decimalise in the bunching and packaging of flowers into tens instead of dozens. Auctioneers and other salesmen who are in the habit of selling swiftly in the market by the natural mental processes of the buyer are able to do so if things are bunched in dozens, which is the way they like to bid, in sixpences and shillings as we now understand them. I do not doubt that our market salesmen are men of great ability and quickness


of mind, but if the 6d. piece is done away with there will be further difficulties in the auctioning and swift selling of units, just as we have had great difficulty in the bunching of flowers in tens.
I realise that all this may mean nothing to the Government. They do not care about the unwarranted difficulties which they are creating for all these people. If the 6d. piece is left in circulation for an experimental period, and if at the end of that time it is found to have gone out of use, as the "tickey" did in South Africa, I shall be happy to come back and tell the Minister that I was wrong, and that it should be done away with, but tonight I believe that the 6d. piece should be kept.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: My hon. and learned Friend will have to produce much stronger arguments than he has done so far if he is to get my support for his attempt to remove the tanner. We accept that this is in many ways a rather lighthearted debate, but, having said that, I must add that an important issue is at stake.
In replying to a question that I asked the other day the Minister of State said that there were 1,900 million 6d. pieces in circulation, and that his estimate—and it can only be an estimate—of the number of insertions of 6d. pieces into various types of machines was about 11,000 million a year. This means in common or garden terms that every man, woman, and child inserts a 6d. piece into a machine of some kind about 200 times a year, or four times a week. When we note that, we realise that this humble coin plays a very important part in our lives.
The 6d. piece has considerable advantages. One great advantage—and no one has mentioned this so far—is its weight. It is possible to carry several 6d. pieces in one's pocket without any difficulty. It is used on innumerable occasions—when one wants to make a telephone call, when one wants to park one's car, and, what is extremely important, on the one-man buses. It has not been easy to get these one-man buses into service. There was strong feeling about their introduction, but their operation depends upon people having 6d. pieces to pay their fares.
It was said in Committee that there might be problems associated with the

weight of the new coins. It was also said that the complexities of conversion might be considerable. There is also the real danger that converting old coins into new coins will lead to price increases. I am sure that the House welcomed what the Postmaster-General said about the 2 newpenny piece which is 4·8d. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said that not everyone requires the same amount of time to make a telephone call, and we therefore welcome what my right hon. Friend said, but there is a danger that in the general context of motoring, travelling on a bus, and other matters for which it will be necessary to do the conversion calculation, great difficulty will arise, and in addition we may find ourselves faced with a price increase.
Those are some of what I regard as the minor arguments against the removal of the 6d. piece. I believe that the major argument for retaining it is this question of landmarks in our coinage system. Switching over to decimalisation will represent a big change for the bulk of the community. It will bring many trials and heartaches. From the point of view of the housewife and the old-age pensioner collecting his pension, the more familiar coins there are the better it will be.
I have read the Committee stage reports very carefully. The Minister put the argument that there can be difficulties associated with conversion. I think that he talked about changing 30d. and getting 25 new half-pence. What we have to realise is that for a long time people will think not in terms of the new penny, but in terms of the old one.

Mr. Macdonald: Nonsense.

Mr. Roberts: I disagree with my hon. Friend. I maintain that for many years people will think in terms of the old 1d. In the old system, one can make up a simple amount like 9s. 6d. by means of four florins, one shilling and a sixpence, but if there is no equivalent for the sixpence, the individual will be lost.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) said that this was a fractional coin, but that is not a strong argument. One of the first things that one learns in mathematics is that fractions and decimals are basically the same. Every coin is a


fraction of something. Despite the arguments in Committee that the half-crown and coins like the 25 cent piece are not fractions, I believe that they are fractions as much as the sixpence.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will put forward stronger arguments. The main argument seems to have been that once sixpences are gone, the machines will be obsolete. But familiarity is a great argument. We must make the change as easy as possible, and this can be done by keeping the traditional sixpenny piece. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will consider what I have said and, even at this late stage, consider accepting the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: The Minister of State must be slightly embarrassed, because he has brought back a slaughtered calf with no head and is now trying to do a transplant operation to sew the head on again—

Mr. Taverne: It has been sewn on.

Sir D. Glover: But we all know from transplant: operations that that does not mean that it will stay on. I intend to do my best to get some red blood in the carcase to make this work.
I like the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald), with whose arguments on many subjects I agree, but he seems to be very confused on this matter. By talking about this new currency going on for hundreds of years, he implied that this was the case with our present currency. This is basically true, but during those hundreds of years, a coin which was in common use in the Middle Ages, the groat, has disappeared and a coin which was in common use when I was a boy, the farthing, has also disappeared. No law of the Medes and Persians says that a coin must exist for ever.
No one on this side wants the Government to give a binding undertaking that the tanner or the shilling will remain for ever, but we want to control inflation and it would be wise to have a 2½d. piece, at least for a transitional period of five or ten years, to save the cost of alteration of vending machines and allow that industry to keep down the cost of parking and, ultimately, the cost of living. I should have thought that the Government would enthusiastically support our campaign.
7 45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) years ago fought a delightful campaign against me. I was successful then, but I hope that we can form an alliance and both be successful now. After a good deal of research, he speaks of 11,000 million transactions, or four per person per week. Without the 6d., parking will probably go up to the next coin, the 1s. Those figures which the hon. Member gave, which were announced in reply to a Parliamentary Question, show what will happen for a family of husband, wife and one child. With 12 transactions a week, they will have to find 2s. 6d. a week more to balance their costs.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: The facts are even worse, because the figure of 11,000 million was an estimate of insertions into meters and vending machines alone, so the actual number of uses of the 6d. must be much greater.

Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His contributions in this matter have been weighty and well-informed. But the smallest of my calculations means that the cost of living of that family will rise by 2s. 6d. a week, an important amount of money. I cannot understand the Government resisting the Amendment. We do not say that the 6d. should last for ever. We are trying to avoid the rounding up for commercial gain which will inevitably result in increased costs. The R.A.C. brochure which has been mentioned said that certain councils are already saying that they will alter their parking charges in this regard.
I accept that, over a period, the normal parking charge will probably rise from 6d. to 1s., but surely this time of financial stringency is not the moment to encourage it, thus creating further inflation and demands for increased incomes. Our job is to make this change with the smallest possible upset; this is the point which the hon. Member for Chislehurst seems to miss. We are prepared to accept that, in five or seven years, because of increased traffic, councils might raise parking charges to 1s. and chocolate bars might legitimately cost 7½d., or, to be exact, 7·2 pence. A great deal of upheaval would be avoided if we retained the 2½d. piece, if only for a time.

Mr. Macdonald: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that this coin should be kept for a short while, and, that, after that period the matter should be reconsidered. How does he reconcile that argument with Amendment No. 10, which proposes to do away with the two new penny piece? If that were accepted there would be no question of rethinking the matter after a while. One would have to keep the 2½d. piece, which means that it is a little smooth of the hon. Gentleman to suggest the possibility of rethinking the matter in, say, five years' time when one would be stuck with that coin.

Sir D. Glover: I am not responsible for my brother's thinking. I am speaking to this Amendment. For all the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) knows, I may oppose Amendment No. 10. There is by no means complete unanimity on this matter. I would be prepared to accept an interim period in which we had coins worth 2 new pence and 2½ new pence.

Mr. Higgins: Perhaps I did not make my argument clear at the outset through trying to be brief. My own perference would be for a sequence of ½ new pence, 1 new pence, 2½ new pence and 5 new pence. This is why several Amendments appear on the Notice Paper. The alternative sequence would be; ½ new pence, 1 new pence, 2 new pence, 2½ new pence and 5 new pence. If the Minister prefers to accept the second sequence I should not insist on pressing the Amendment to eliminate the 2 new pence piece. If the second sequence were adopted, the 6d. might drop out of use quickly, whereas if the first sequence were adopted it might continue in use for many years.

Sir D. Glover: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for explaining the matter further. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will see that my hon. Friends are not being dogmatic about this. One need only read the OFFICIAL REPORT of our debates in Committee to see that there is not party unanimity on this matter. I am sure that if there were a free vote the House would support the retention of the "tanner" for a given time, for we want to see a smooth changeover.
I regret to say that whatever views are expressed the Minister will stick to his

original argument. I have no doubt that his Ministerial brief has "reject" stamped on it in large red letters. This Amendment is not likely to get far, therefore, despite the overwhelming view of hon. Members who have spoken on this subject.
In view of the lack of wisdom shown by the Government in other matters, they are unlikely to accept our argument on this occasion. If they have any wisdom they will accept the Amendment because it will give them the flexibility which is necessary in making a change of this kind, and will overcome the difficulty about which we have been speaking.

Mr. Lubbock: For the sake of tidiness, it is best to avoid fractional coins in a decimal system. My first inclination, therefore, would be to adopt the Minister's point of view and oppose the Amendment. This is one of the difficulties of having a system based on the £ instead of 10s. Had the case which we were making three years ago been accepted by the Government, this problem need not have arisen. Now we must try to design a system which causes the minimum of inconvenience, even if it is not as arithmetically tidy as we would have liked.
It is obvious that the 6d. piece must be retained during the transitional period, which may last for as long as 18 months, according to the Decimal Currency Board. If the Minister accepted the Amendment he would not be prevented from asking Her Majesty to make a proclamation demonetising the coin at the end of that 18 months' period. In the meantime, he would have additional flexibility. If he found at the end of the transitional period that the 6d. coin was still being demanded on a wide scale by the public, he could extend the transitional period. On the other hand, if he discovered that everything was going swimmingly and that the Decimal Currency Board was happy with the transitional arrangements, the one fly in the ointment, the 6d. piece, could go. The Amendment would give him that little extra flexibility, and he should welcome it.
Far from going out of fashion, more and more 6d. pieces are being snapped


up by the public. On 11th March I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
… how many … sixpences … were minted by the Royal Mint in 1968; how many … will be minted in 1969 …
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied in a Written Answer.
In 1968 the Royal Mint struck … 76 million sixpences … In the first six months of 1969 the Royal Mint plans to strike … 85 million sixpences."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 255–6.]
Thus, the Royal Mint takes the view, based on the demands placed on it by the banks, that 6d. pieces are required.
I discussed this matter of old coinage with officers of the Royal Mint when I visited the Mint the other day. As I saw the number of old-type coins being produced I asked, "How does it come about that, with decimal currency shortly to be introduced, you are producing for circulation so many old coins?" I was told that, to a large extent, the Mint had to work to the demands placed on it by the public, as conveyed through the banks. The result is the number of 6d. pieces being produced in the first half of this year. This indicates that the public require this coin for their daily transactions.
When we discussed this matter in Committee the Minister said, in effect, that we should not prolong the agony and that, if the 6d. piece is to go out of circulation, we should kill it off quickly. I suggest that the 6d. piece should be kept, although the Minister should, at the same time, inform vending machine manufacturers and local authorities that it is only an interim measure. He should make it clear that, for parking meters and other machines, the 6d. piece will not have an extremely long life and that it would be unwise of them to buy machines designed to take 6d. pieces.
The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) is lucky to pay only 6d. when he parks his car. I have found in London that the normal charge is 1s., and often 2s. It is unlikely that local authorities have been installing in recent months parking meters that take sixpences. If they were encouraged by the acceptance of this Amendment to go back on the programme of converting to other coins all that the Minister would have to do would be to make clear that he is not pre-judging going back to the use of the 6d.

8.0 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: Not all hon. Members present represent London constituencies. I think they would agree that the usual initial charge outside London still is 6d.

Mr. Lubbock: I accept the hon. Member's word for that. Perhaps they are slightly less inflationary in the Provinces than we are in London.
At the instigation of the Government, the Decimal Currency Board has been quite inflexible on the matter of compensation. Certain industries will be faced with serious burdens as a result of the abolition of coins now in everyday use. I think particularly of coins which are used to buy sweets and other items at low prices. If we are to force operators of these machines to spend large sums of money unproductively in converting to other coins and if at the same time we are to say to chocolate manufacturers and others that they must design new packets and reorganise the whole of their production lines, there will be very substantial expenditure with no economic benefit whatever to the nation. This will take place at a time when we can ill afford it.
I am concerned not only with industries which will be penalised but with the general economic situation. The Minister of State should take this into account in deciding what advice to give the House on this Amendment. Very powerful arguments have been put in its favour. It would cost him nothing to accept it, but it would save the country a great deal of money.

Mr. John Hall: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has made some very telling points, particularly in drawing attention to the increasing popularity of the "tanner". I want to come back to the main theme which has run throughout the debate, the inflationary effect of dispensing with the tanner. The introduction of decimal currency will tend towards inflation and this would be added to by abolishing the 6d. piece. It is the overriding duty of the Government to avoid anything which leads to inflation. The inflationary argument is one of the strongest in favour of this Amendment.
The second argument, which has been stressed in various ways by hon. Members, is the capital expenditure involved in converting machines. Will the Minister


of State tell us how much it will cost the Post Office, for instance, to convert telephone coin boxes? How much will it cost makers of vending machines who are likely to be affected, including the manufacturers of meters, if the 6d. is removed from the coins of the realm? I imagine that it will be a fairly large capital sum. When we consider the total cost of converting to decimal currency, which was quoted in the White Paper as about £128 million, we see that this will be a burden on the nation at a time when the country cannot afford such a burden. It will not add to any extent to the economic strength of the country. Anything the Government could do at least to defer for a considerable time some part of that expenditure would be welcome.
In his reply the Minister of State should deal with the removal of the 6d. coin, its effect on inflation, and the cost problem. I think it would avoid considerable cost for a considerable time if the "tanner" were kept. It would avoid making many changes which would have to take place in vending machines of one kind and another.

Mr. Taverne: I will first dispose of two points with which I do not propose to deal in depth. The first is the question of capital cost, which can be further discussed when we deal with compensation. Second, there is the question of flexibility. That does not affect the merit of the argument because it is perfectly possible for the Government to make a proclamation that the 6d. will not be demonetised but will continue as a coin of 2½ new pence in value. We resist the Amendment because we want to make the position quite clear. Flexibility is there whether or not the Amendment is passed.
There are two main approaches to this question. There are the long-term approach and the transitional problem. Most of the discussion in the House has been about the transitional problem, but I should say something about the long-term question. It arises because one of the Amendments we are discussing in this group is whether or not the 2 new pence piece should be removed. There are two main fallacies in the argument on the long-term directed towards keeping the 6d. The first is that what is popular in an £s.d. coinage system will

be popular in a decimal currency system. This clearly is not so as many experiments have shown and as experience in other countries has shown. Experiments show that the use of a coin which includes a fraction is more difficult to handle than a coin which itself is a fraction like the ½ new penny. It slows down payment and increases the number of errors.
It has further been shown that in change-giving the 6d. coin or the 2½ new pence coin will not be used in the way in which it is used at the moment. This is not just the view of the Government. It is not just the view of the Halsbury Committee, and not just the view of the experiments carried out by Dr. Sheila Jones. This is something which has been realised by many people in trade. It has been made clear that large stores are planning and training their staff on the basis of giving change not in sixpences but in terms of the 2 new penny coin and the 1 new penny coin and the ½ new penny coin.
They are doing so because they realise that one cannot train young girls of 16 as effectively in change-giving if they are encouraged to use the 2½ new penny as by proceeding with twos and ones and getting rid of the ½ new penny by adding the individual half penny.
It was also the experience in other countries that in change-giving, which constitutes 80 per cent. of the transactions carried out in the retail trade, the 2½ new penny coin will not feature. It is a mistake to suppose that the 6d. coin would be popular under the new system in the way in which it is under the old. Most big stores are training their staffs on the basis of ignoring the 6d. even over a long period. No doubt the hon. Member for Ormkirk (Sir D. Glover) noticed a letter in the Financial Times by the Chairman of the Decimal Currency Committee of the Retail Distributors Association pointing out that the arguments for the 6d. are misconceived. He said:
Most sectors of retailing are now well advanced with planning for decimalisation, and these plans do not include the use of the 6d. coin.
… New methods of change-giving will be taught".
It was made clear that they did not cater for the 6d.

Sir D. Glover: All that that argument means is that if I am a retailer and if for two years I have been working on the basis of the Decimal Currency Bill, I have been making my arrangements on that basis and, therefore, I do not want at this late stage to have the machinery altered. That argument does not touch the arguments we have been making about parking meters, slot machines, and so on, because these retailers do not deal with them.

Mr. Taverne: Of course it does not touch the argument about slot machines. That is a quite different argument, which I shall tackle separately. This is a point of fundamental importance which hon. Members opposite have neglected. In the change-giving process in the new decimal currency the 2½ new penny piece will not be a convenient piece to use and will not be used.
The second aspect of the long-term argument, which has been neglected by hon. Members opposite, is that it does not follow that a popular pricing system under the old system will be a popular pricing system under the new system. It is possible to arrange a new pricing and packaging system generally which will not be inflationary but which will no longer be based on the old 6d.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I am worried about the point made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) about packaging. This is a cardinal point. If industry is geared to a present tanner packaging, enormous industrial costs will be involved in moving to a new unit of packaging.

Mr. Taverne: Of course costs will be involved. No one denies that costs will be involved for industry in changing over to the new decimal system. This has been made clear from the start. But it is totally misconceived to argue that it is impossible to have a new form of pricing and packaging without increasing the cost to the customer. Individual items can be arranged; the pricing and the packaging can be arranged so that in terms of value for money there will be no inflationary effect as a result of the change to the decimal system. We are not discouraging retailers from using the new halfpenny in the pricing of low-priced goods. It is totally false to argue that because things will still be priced in 2½ new pence, for example, we must have a 2½ new pence coin. At the

moment, although it is popular to price articles in amounts ending with l1d., it does not follow that we need an eleven penny coin.
Let me come now to the arguments which mainly prevailed in the debate These were the arguments about the transitional arrangements. There is one point which hon. Members have totally neglected. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) should have paid slightly more regard to this. There is nothing that the Government can do to ensure the popularity of the tanner under the new decimal system. What is absolutely vital in considering what will happen is to consider how cash flows. The reason why sixpences are popular is that sixpences are drawn from the banks by retailers. They are drawn from the banks by retailers because at the moment the sixpence is a very popular way of giving change. There is a net movement of sixpences out of the banks to retailers. There is a net movement from retailers to customers. It is true that sometimes people pay in sixpences, but they receive more sixpences from retailers than they give back to retailers.
The next part of the flow is that these sixpences then find their way from the pockets of the public into coin-operated machines. There is a net flow from coin-operated machines to the banks. Therefore, the popularity of the sixpence depends basically on the fact that under the £.s.d. system it is a very easy change-giving unit for retailers. Once it ceases to be a popular change-giving unit for retailers, the public will not be able to get their sixpences. The fact that there are now millions of transactions in which the public use sixpences is a reason for making it quite clear that the sixpence will be demonetised, because if coin-operated machines continue to keep their sixpenny coin slot the result will be that there will be masses of machines which are still ready to take the sixpence but there will be no sixpences that people can put into the machines.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Lubbock: If the Minister of State is so absolutely certain that after D-day the sixpence will cease to be a popular coin, why did he allow the Royal Mint to produce 85 million of them in the first six months of last year, at a cost to the taxpayer of £140,000?

Mr. Taverne: The reason why sixpences are produced at the moment is that sixpences are in great demand. It is the duty of the Mint to meet the demand that the public puts forward. When there is no longer a demand, when the public will not be getting the sixpences because the retail trade will no longer be providing sixpences to the public, then the supply of sixpences for the public to be put into coin-operated machines will dry up. The Mint must meet the demand. The demand will cease to exist far more rapidly than hon. Members realise or even imagine during the transitional period. This was found to be the case in South Africa with the "tickey". South Africa said,"Let us keep the ' tickey ', because it is a popular coin". Then it found, contrary to its expectation, that because a coin which includes a fraction is not a convenient coin for change-giving, the "tickey"proved to be far less popular than was imagined. There is one difference between South Africa and this country —

Mr. Lubbock: Only one?

Mr. Taverne: I must correct that at once and say, "as far as the ' tickey ' and the sixpence are concerned ".
The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) asked whether the "tickey" was widely used for coin-operated machines in South Africa. The answer is, "No". The result is that, where it is not used for coin-operated machines, the "tickey" will stay in circulation much longer than the sixpence will in this country, because it is the coin-operated machines that remove the sixpences from circulation, that supply the sixpences to the banks, where the net flow is from the coin-operated machines to the banks. Therefore, it will be a far faster process of removing the sixpences in circulation in Britain than ever happened in South Africa with the "tickey". If retailers are not drawing out sixpences, they are quickly removed from the public by coin-operated machines. Sixpences will not be drawn out by retailers. Therefore, there is more likely to be a rapid removal of the sixpence than there ever was with the "tickey".

Sir D. Glover: I have a good deal of knowledge of the retail trade. I think

the Minister of State is on a very dangerous argument. What he is saying is that prices in the shops will alter, because if prices in the shops do not alter a purchaser will get the same amount back in change. If I want to buy something which was 19s. 6d. before decimal currency and which should be 19s. 6d. after the change-over to decimal currency, I want a coin back which will give me the same change out of my £1 note as I got before decimalisation. If I do not get it, it means that the price has risen.

Mr. Taverne: What the hon. Gentleman is totally unable to do is to transfer in his imagination from an £ s. d. system to a decimal system. He is still arguing that because in the £ s. d. system the 6d. is a popular coin in change-giving, therefore it must remain one in the decimal system. This is what the South African experience shows to be untrue.
The fact is that there is nothing that the Government can do to stop the 6d. from going out of circulation. What would be the result if we were to accede to the arguments which have been advanced tonight and were to say, "We will see whether or not the sixpence proves to be unpopular"? The result would be likely to be confusion and frustration and a bringing of discredit on to the new decimal currency system. What would happen would be that the 6d. would go out of circulation; machine operators might be encouraged to wait and see and not to convert their machines; the machines would still be there waiting for the sixpences, but the public would no longer have the sixpences in their pockets. That is what would result if we were to encourage the 6d. to remain after the transitional period. It is absolutely essential, for the effective transition and the smallest possible dislocation, an object which we all share, to make it quite clear that the 6d. will be demonetised, to ensure that the trade and the machine operators have a firm basis on which to plan, and to see that the transition takes place as rapidly as possible.
It is then said that even if those arguments are true there is nevertheless bound to be an inflationary effect as far as the machines are concerned. It is very important to look at what the machine position is. There are about 1·7 million machines operated by sixpences. The


largest single group, which consists of television meters, totals just over 600,000. They are fitted to ensure that the rent or hire-purchase payment is available when due, and the excess is returned to the user when the meter is emptied. If these meters use different coins for a different time there is no reason why that should or need be inflationary.
The second largest group, about 300,000, consists of amusement and gaming machines—mainly fruit machines, pin tables and juke boxes. Stakes and winnings can be increased commen-surately, as can the amount of time sold; so there is no need for an increase in the cost of living.
The next largest group is telephone call boxes. As my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has announced the intention is to change them so that the minimum fee will become 2 new pence, and, again, there is no reason why this should be inflationary. Indeed, taking the arguments advanced by some hon. Members opposite, this could have the opposite effect. It is rightly said by some that in certain cases the time can be adjusted. One may not necessarily want the extra time. I will not say what will happen if a smaller unit is used as the basic unit, as the 2 new pence unit will be, because I cannot predict. It is possible to adjust the time downwards, and those who wish to speak for only half a minute or a few seconds can do so at a smaller cost than they did before.
The next largest group of meters is gas and electricity meters, mostly electricity. In all, there are about 10 million gas and electricity meters, of which about 100,000, or 1 per cent., take sixpences. They are being changed to operate on shillings, and the amount of gas or electricity supplied can be changed as well; so again there is no reason for there to be any inflation.
One comes down in the end to parking meters, where one could make adjustments to ensure, if one wished, that there was no inflation with smaller coins. I cannot anticipate what local authorities will

do. Apparently some are changing to higher coins; many were doing so in any event. The hon. Member for Orpington made a perfectly good point about parking meters.

There is a point on the 100,000 machines selling chocolate and confectionery. But many of these now sell shilling bars for two sixpences, and there is no reason for any inflation here, because a 5 new pence piece can be inserted where two sixpences are inserted now, although one will no longer have a 6d. to put in. The amount of chocolate one gets for a shilling is more than double the amount one gets for 6d. The 6d. bar of chocolate is becoming rarer, and it is possible that a change might have to be made in any event.

There are 100,000 machines selling aspirins and indigestion tablets. These can be converted to take 5 new pence or 2 new pence coins and the number of tablets can be varied proportionately.

Looking at the vast majority of machines which will have to be adapted, I see no reason to suppose that the change need bring about any general inflation of prices.

The main fact is that the sixpenny piece is a convenient coin in the old system, and that the 2½ new pence unit will not be a convenient coin in the decimal system. Whatever the House says about this will not affect the practice, the flow of money, the machine transactions and the change-giving transactions in the shops, because they will be carried out differently in the future. Whatever one would like to do with machines, if we encourage the hope that the 6d. will remain we make planning more difficult, are likely to lead to the frustration of the public and are not likely to achieve the easy transition the whole House wishes to achieve.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 80, Noes 102.

Division No. 135.1
AYES
[8.24 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Dance, James


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dean, Paul


Biffen, John
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Drayson, G. B.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Elliott, R. W. CN'c'tle-upon-Tyne. N.)


Body, Richard
Costain, A. P.
Emery, Peter


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Crouch, David
Eyre, Reginald


Brown, Sir Edwsrd (Bath)
Dalkeith, Earl or
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles




Fortescue, Tim
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Foster, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sharples, Richard


Glover, Sir Douglas
Lubbock, Eric
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Grant, Anthony
Maddan, Martin
Smith, John (London & W'minster)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Miwby, Ray
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Temple, John M.


Gurden, Harold
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus
Waddington, David


Hay, John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Ward, Dame Irene


Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hill, J. E. B.
Percival, Ian
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hooson, Emlyn
Prior, J M. L.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hornby, Richard
Pym, Francis
Worsley, Marcus


Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James



Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rawtinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Howie, W.
Oswald, Thomas


Atkins. Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hunter, Adam
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Beaney, Alan
Hynd, John
Palmer, Arthur


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurence


Bidwell, Sydney
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham)
Pentland, Norman


Booth, Albert
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Randall, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Luard, Evan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cant, R. B.
Lyon, Alexander W. (Cork)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Chapman, Donald
McCann, John
Roebuck, Roy


Concannon, J. D.
MacColl, James
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Macdonald, A. H.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dalyell, Tam
Maclennan, Robert
Ryan, John


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Ifor (Govwer)
Manor, Peter (Preston, S.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Manuel, Archie
Skeffington, Arthur


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Marks, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Ellis, John
Marquand, David
Taverne, Dick


English, Michael
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Tinn, James


Ensor, David
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Tuck, Raphael


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Mendelson, J. J,
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Vardley)
Mikardo, Ian
Wallace, George


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David


Fowler, Gerry
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wellbeloved, James


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Molloy, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Moonman, Eric
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Winnick, David


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)



Hamling, William
Moyle, Roland
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Newens, Stan
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Mr Neil McBride.


Hazell, Bert

Clause added to the Bill.

Clause 2

CONVERSION OF REFERENCES TO SHILLINGS AND PENCE IN CERTAIN INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 17 to 20 and insert:
(g) any document not mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs which is intended to enable a person to obtain through a banker payment of any sum mentioned in the document.
This Amendment provides statutory cover for the conversion of pounds and new pence on the basis of the whole new

penny table of all old coinage instruments of payment drawn, issued or made before decimal day which are passed through the bank clearing system and not specifically covered in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (3). As the Bill stands, it provides that the Treasury can make an Order that certain instruments specified by this Clause shall also be covered.

I explained in Committee that we did not know all the instruments that might have to be covered and therefore wished to have some such general power. I was asked why we did not know, and could we not find out? I said that I would make inquiries. Inquiries have been made and one of the clearing banks has


provided a list of 140 organisations which issue documents presented through the clearing system and drawn upon itself. The list is by no means comprehensive. Even a controlled analysis of items lasting three months would not provide a fully comprehensive list, since it would not take in instruments drawn infrequently and at irregular intervals.

This is a comprehensive Clause. It would obviously be undesirable to place the burden of finding all these instruments on the banks, who have enough to do. Further, it would obviously be undesirable to specify all 140-plus instruments in the Bill. Instead, this general umbrella has been provided, which I hope the House will find acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

CONVERSION OF BANK BALANCES

Mr. Lubbock: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 22, after ' bank', insert ' or a building society'.
This Amendment arises out of a point made by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in Committee when he referred to the position of the building societies, and asked the Minister of State whether they were included in the definition. The Minister made it quite clear that they were not. He outlined the reasons for the Clause as it then stood in relation to the banks. He said:
The Clause does not specifically state who will make the conversion, but this is not necessary. The banks will do so, and they are entitled to do so, and that is the end of the matter. It is true the awkward customer may then say to the banks, ' I did not like what you did,' but the bank will say, ' We were entitled to do so end we have done so '."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 4th March, 1969; c. 150.]
This Clause is to take account of the awkward customer, as the Minister puts it, who objects to the conversion of the balance which was expressed in terms of the existing denomination, into decimal coinage immediately after D-day.
As the Minister has made clear, the banks are the ony organisations actually empowered to convert on D-day. The rest of the organisations which have balances would be covered under Clause 8, which does not take effect until the

end of the transitional period. I put it to the House that the building societies should be given the same power as is conferred on the banks, because of the very large number of deposits which they have to operate. I am informed by the building societies that on the date of conversion there will be something like 14 million accounts of investors and borrowers, which might be affected by this Amendment. Although there may be other organisations which might have wished to have the same power, the building societies are the biggest single group affected in this way.
I understand that the Building Societies Association has recommended to members that they should take advantage of the closure period allowed in the Bill which would be on Thursday and Friday, 11th and 12th February, 1971, so that they can make their own arrangements. This would be very convenient, because there will not only be two days during the working week when the banks will be closed but, if the transition could not be completed then, if necessary, additional overtime could be worked on the Saturday and Sunday. There would then be four days within which clerical and administrative operations connected with the change-over could be completed. In the case of the largest building society, there would be as many as 1,750,000 accounts. There are many smaller societies who will need this period. There will not be another opportunity because on no occasion will the banks actually be shut for two days.
They will be as equally likely to have awkward customers as will the banks and they want to co-operate with the Government and effect the change-over as quickly as possible. If the Minister thinks that this conflicts with the argument we had on the previous Amendment, it could be qualified by adding the proviso that it should be for the convenience of the public. What I am suggesting is very much in the interest of the public. Indeed, the Government White Paper itself (Cmnd. 3889) says in paragraph 19:
It is desirable to keep the changeover period as short as possible".
Surely, therefore, the Government ought to encourage organisations like building societies that are prepared to do this to put the changes into action immediately following Decimal day, 1971.
The building societies wrote to the Treasury on this point and received a reply yesterday, so that I am afraid very little time has been available in which to study it. It would have been helpful if there could have been a rather more prompt reply. The building societies wrote to the Treasury on 18th February and the reply has only just been received. I am not complaining so much of that, but the Treasury letter explains why the banks are given this special provision and no other organisations are brought into the Clause. Frankly, after reading it, I cannot say that the argument stands up.
Where the Treasury says that under Clause 12 bills of exchange, which include cheques and promissory notes, will be invalid if they are drawn in shillings and pence from D-day onwards it is helping the case I am putting; because, as all cheques going into the building societies are to be drawn in the new amounts, would it not be convenient if, at the same time, the balances are converted? I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to accept this Amendment which, although it is not of very fundamental importance, would put the building societies in a position to make the change after D-day with peace of mind knowing, like the banks, that they will not have to suffer the possibility of receiving a comeback from awkward customers.

Mr. Taverne: The Amendment has to be judged against the background of what is happening; and what will be happening is that during the transitional period both the old and new currencies will be legal tender. If this is so it is very difficult for the Government to say unilaterally that, in general, people may decide they will accept payment in only one particular form. If both forms of payment are legal tender then it seems reasonable to say that people should be entitled to pay in old currency if they wish to do so.
This is the general question which first has to be considered by the Government. Certainly, there will be nothing to stop people converting accounts into decimal form during the period; and in general the Government expect that those who pay amounts to organisations that have converted, or receive amounts from such organisations, will be prepared to do so

in decimal currency in accordance with the table. But as a matter of law we feel that people should be allowed, if they wish, still to pay in the old currency.
The one exception to this is the exception in the case of banks provided under the Bill. The reason for that is that there will be no change-over period at all for the banks, because after decimal day bills of exchange and promissory notes will be invalid if they are drawn in shillings and pence after that day. In the case of the banks, therefore, an exception had to be made. The hon. Gentleman has tried to argue the case for building societies and I would not argue that there is no case. But in practice 80 per cent. of payments to building societies are made by cheques on banks, so that there is no doubt they will be made in decimal currency form. But the difficulty of the Amendment is that it is very difficult to reconcile it with the first principle I announced, that people should still be free, in general, to pay in old coins if they wish to do so during the transitional period. If we drew the line at the building societies, it would be difficult to stop there. Why should we do it with the building societies and not with insurance companies? Why not do it with hire-purchase companies? Exactly the same considerations arise with them.

Mr. Lubbock: Not quite. I said that the building societies had 14 million accounts. The insurance companies do not have deposits and loans on this scale.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Taverne: Some payments may be made through building societies, but a tremendous number of payments are through insurance companies. It would be very hard not to give this right to the insurance companies if it were given to the building societies. I should not like to say how many payments are made through hire-purchase companies, but they must run into millions. It would be hard to deny this right to them. If we did not draw the line at the banks, we would be abandoning the general principle.
Therefore, with some regret, I must ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 14

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 12, line 20, at end insert:
(6A) In the case of cupro-nickel coins of the denomination of fifty new pence issued for use before the appointed day as current coins of the denomination of ten shillings by virtue of section 2(4) of the Decimal Currency Act 1967, section 1 of the Coinage Act, 1946 (cupro-nickel coins to be legal tender for payments up to forty shillings) shall apply as if the reference to an amount not exceeding forty shillings were a reference to an amount not exceeding ten pounds.
This Amendment is consequential on the new form of Clause 1. Under the new Clause 1, it was provided that the legal tender limit for the new 50 new pence piece should be £5 instead of £2. This Amendment simply provides that this should also apply from the moment that the new coin is introduced, which will be 14th October this year.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

REPEAL OF S.(5)(1)(d) OF DECIMAL CURRENCY ACT 1967, AND OTHER REPEALS.

Mr. Higgins: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 13, line 16, leave out subsection (1).
The purpose of Clause 16 is to remove from the Decimal Currency Board the obligation which it had under the earlier Decimal Currency Act to receive representations about compensation. There is entire agreement between the Minister of State and myself about the decision reached after the original Decimal Currency Act—that there should be no system of general compensation. None the less, it is not right at this stage in the proceedings to allow the Board to suggest to the Government, and for the Government to accept, that the Board should cease to receive any representations on this subject.
The argument put forward by the Minister of State in Committee was not reasonable. It has been agreed that there should be no system of general compensation. If the Board continues to

receive representations, it may receive a case in which it is justified in making an exception and compensation should be pa1d. If that is so, there may be other similar cases. While we accept that a system of general compensation is not justified, individual firms or organisations may be able to show that they have suffered and that the Government should pay them compensation.
The Minister of State accepted in Committee that this question should not be decided by whether Government expenditure would be involved. I hope that we shall not hear it said, "The Opposition are pressing for more Government expenditure". This is most certainly not what we are doing. We are saying that in the Decimal Currency Act the Government accepted an obligation to consider the payment of compensation if a case can be made out. The Government have accepted this potential obligation to expend money, and the Decimal Currency Board ought not at this stage to give up its duty in this respect.
Since the Decimal Currency Act came into force the Decimal Currency Board has set out criteria against which it said that it would judge applications for compensation. It is debatable whether the Board made clear whether these were necessary and sufficient criteria, or whether they were necessary but not sufficient criteria. The impression of industry in general was that, if the criteria announced by the Decimal Currency Board were satisfied, this would mean that there was a reasonable case which could be discussed further by the Board and passed on to the Government. These criteria having been set up, and many firms having apparently met all the criteria, the Decimal Currency Board, instead of pursuing the matter in greater detail with those firms, has carried the matter no further, and has suggested that the obligation to consider further applications should be removed from the Board.
As a result of the decision which the House has taken this evening on the 6d., it is clear that many firms will incur additional costs which would not have been incurred had the 6d. been retained. There is, therefore, a case for saying that the Board should continue to receive representations from those affected by the


decision to abolish the 6d. There may be cases of a special nature which will emerge only between now and the beginning of the transitional period, or between now and the end of the transitional period. For the Decimal Currency Board to ask the Government to relieve it of its responsibility now is quite unjustified. For that reason, I hope that the House will support the Amendment.

Mr. John Hall: Most of the arguments on this Amendment have already been deployed in Standing Committee on a similar Amendment which I moved, so I shall be brief.
The debate on the original Decimal Currency Act was in June, 1967, when the Treasury spokesman said that there was to be no general compensation but, nevertheless, special cases could be considered and were to be referred to the Decimal Currency Board for investigation to see whether there was a case for compensation which it could recommend to the Government.
It was accepted in Standing Committee that the objections that certain people and associations might have had to the introduction of the decimalisation system and to the decision of the Government not to have a general scheme of compensation were to some extent met by the promise that special cases would be treated fairly and justly by the Decimal Currency Board, which could recommend compensation. Therefore, the objections which might have been pressed still further and more strongly from both sides of the House on behalf of people likely to be affected seriously by the changeover to a decimal system were not pressed to the extent that they might have been.
After considering all the evidence from a number of associations, the Decimal Currency Board found that it was necessary to draw up certain criteria which had to be met by any person or organisation seeking compensation. The Automatic Vending Machine Association of Britain which was affected by this wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer protesting at the dismissal of its representations by the Decimal Currency Board. In the course of its letter dated 13 th September, 1968, addressed to the Chancellor,

it said that the impression created with the Association was that
… no claim, no matter how morally justified, shall be permitted to succeed, and leaves us with little doubt that references in the Government White Paper and in the Act to ' special circumstances' compensation has no substance and that there was never, at any time, any intention to pay compensation no matter how justified.
Understandably, the Chancellor reacted strongly to that accusation of bad faith and, in his reply dated 16th October, 1968, he said:
You are completely mistaken if you suppose that the Government have approached this question of compensation otherwise than in good faith.
Then we come to the next stage, when the Decimal Currency Board asked to be relieved of responsibility for deciding these special cases for compensation, and it recommended that no compensation be paid at any time. That must leave the impression in the minds of those likely to be seriously affected by this decision that they have been led up the garden path and have been the victims of bad faith on the part of the Government.
If one examines the criteria established by the Decimal Currency Board, one finds that the first one is:
they must be necessarily and directly incurred as a result of decimalisation and would not otherwise have been incurred".
In the case of the Automatic Vending Association of Britain, there is no doubt that the costs would not be incurred but for decimalisation.
The second criterion is:
they must be clearly identifiable and measurable".
That, too, is very easy to do in a case of this kind.
The third criterion is:
the must be manifestly disproportionate, after taking into account all tax allowances, both to the costs incurred generally by organisations and to the benefits deriving from the changeover ".
That, again, presents no problem.
The fourth criterion is:
they must be for the conversion or replacement of machines purchased before 14th July, 1967".
That, too, could easily be done.
The only one which might be difficult to meet is the fifth and last which says:
they must extend so far beyond the normal financial fluctuations and hazards of business


that they cannot be readily absorbed in normal operating costs ".
That is capable of such wide and general interpretation that it is difficult to imagine any organisation which could meet it if it was the intention of the Decimal Currency Board not to allow it to meet it.
The Decimal Currency Board having created the criteria, it seems very odd that it should find itself unable to adjudicate on cases brought to it. Unless the Amendment is accepted, in my view the Government will remain accused of bad faith in this matter.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Taverne: The Government approached this question with a certain amount of regret. At the start, we had an open mind on the issue of compensation. As the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) conceded, we ruled out any general scheme of compensation. But we asked the Decimal Currency Board to look at the possibility of a special scheme of compensation, and it was charged with examining whether it could recommend such a scheme in special cases. It was not always to be the exceptional case which was to be the subject of a scheme, if any. The hon. Member for Worthing said that there was an obligation on the Government to pay compensation in exceptional cases. This is not so.

Mr. Higgins: It was not my intention to give that impression. In fact, I do not think I d1d. I said that there was an obligation on the Board to receive representations, and I thought that would be reasonable.

Mr. Taverne: Indeed, there was a statutory obligation. I apologise if I did not hear the hon. Gentleman aright.
I should make it clear that there was never any obligation on the Government to give compensation to anyone. We said that the Decimal Currency Board was to receive these representations to see whether it could recommend a scheme, but it was also made clear that it was possible that it could recommend no scheme and that it should recommend that there should be no compensation for anyone. This was made clear in the original White Paper which said:
If it can be shown to the Decimal Currency Board … that there are grounds for… assistance in special cases the Government will

consider any recommendations the Board may care to make. But such cases, if there are any at all, will be exceptional.
I mentioned in Committee, but it is important to repeat it to the House as a whole, that during the debates in Standing Committee on 2nd May, 1967—the debate on the former Decimal Currency Bill—the then Financial Secretary said specifically at column 232 that it was possible that the Board would recommend no compensation.
The hon. Member for Worthing is right in saying that the issue is not one of Government expenditure. Indeed, it is with reluctance that the Government have accepted the advice of the Decimal Currency Board that a special scheme was not feasible. We would have liked a special scheme, but when the Board said that it could not draw up a fair one which could be properly administered, reluctantly we had to accept its advice.
It was the Board's duty to receive representations, and it did receive them. It was the right body to examine the problem. It was an extremely experienced body, and it went into the matter in very great detail. It found by the summer that none of the representations which it had received justified a special scheme, it is not that some of these representations did not make out a strong case for a particular industry or firm; it was impossible, on the basis of the representations, to see what a scheme would look like. For that reason, the Board published criteria, first, to remove doubts about the minimum that would be required and, second, to help it to decide whether representations could be such as to justify a special scheme.
The difficulty throughout has been one to which I feel hon. Members opposite have not given due weight. It is not that a good case cannot be made out for, say, vending machines. If there was a good case for vending machines, it was impossible to establish any criteria by which we could distinguish vending machines from amusement machines. If a good case could be made out for amusement machines, it was impossible to draw a line and draw up a scheme which would include amusement machines but would clearly establish principles by which it would not apply to cash registers. Whichever way we looked at it, it was not a shortage of facts which led the Board to


the conclusion that a scheme was not feasible. Indeed it went into a great many facts. It had a large number of representations and it made the most detailed investigations. It was not the absence of facts which led to this conclusion; it was the basic insolubility of the problem. The Board realised how insoluble the problem of working out a fair scheme was only after it had looked at all the representations it was asked to examine.
If the hon. Member for Worthing asks the House to say that it should look at further representations and examine further facts, he fails to meet the point that however many more facts we look at we still cannot arrive at a scheme which can fairly, without anomalies and inequities between one class and another or between one firm and another, say that some under the scheme are entitled to compensation and others are not.
In a sense, the argument between hon. Members and myself has been at cross purposes. They have said that case A or case B is a deserving one, and in a way I am not disputing that. What I am saying is, If a scheme is allowed for case A and case B, you must show me a principle on which I can distinguish them from case C and case D ". The Board has not been able to find such

a principle, and no one has been able to suggest one. In those circumstances, with reluctance, we felt it necessary to accept the Board's advice and to concede, with regret, that we could no longer place on it the burden of receiving representations which cannot solve this basic problem.

Mr. John Hall: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, he was kind enough in an earlier debate to say that my point about the capital cost of, for example, converting the coin-operated Post Office telephone boxes would be better raised in this debate. Can he now give me the figures for which I then asked?

Mr. Taverne: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman exact figures. I have made inquiries, and I understand that the estimates of the cost of, for example, the conversion and adaptation which will be necessary for the 6d. coin machines have varied widely from £3½ million to £10 million. A figure somewhere between the two may be the right one, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact cost for telephone call boxes. It is the only help I can give him.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 76, Noes 91.

Division No. 136.]
AYES
[9.06 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pym, Francis


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Hawkins, Paul
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biffen, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Boardman, Tom (Lelcester, S. W.)
Hill, J. E. B.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Body, Richard
Holland, Philip
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hooson, Emlyn
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hornby, Richard
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Iremonger, T. L.
Sharples, Richard


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, John (London & W'minster)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nalrn)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Temple, John M.


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dean, Paul
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Drayson, G. B.
Lubbock, Eric
Waddington, David


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyn'e, N.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Ward, Dame Irene


Emery, Peter
Maddan, Martin
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fortescue, Tim
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Foster, Sir John
Montgomery, Fergus
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glover, Sir Douglas
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Worsley, Marcus


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Grant, Anthony
Pardoe, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant-Ferris, R.
Percival, Ian
Mr. Jasper Moore and


Grieve, Percy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Hector Monro.


Gurdtn, Harold
Prior, J. M. L.





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Malley, Brian


Ashton, Jos (Bassetlaw)
Hazell, Bert
Oswald, Thomas


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hooley, Frank
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Howie, W.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Palmer Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Hunter, Adam
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hynd, John
Pentland, Norman


Booth, Albert
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Randall, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Luard, Evan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Chapman, Donald
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Roebuck, Roy


Concannon, J. D,
McCann, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Crawshaw, IRichard
MacColl, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dalyell, Tam
Macdonald, A. H.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Taverne, Dick


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Tinn, James


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)




Ellis, John
Manuel, Archie
Tuck, Raphael


English, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ensor, David
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wallace, George


Evans, Gwynfor (C'roarthsn)
Mendelson, J. J.
Weitzman, David


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mikardo, Ian
Wellbeloved, James


Faulds, Andrew
Millan, Bruce
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Molloy, William
Whitaker, Ben


Fowler, Gerry
Moonman, Eric
Wilkins, W. A.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Winnick, David


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Newens, Stan
Mr. Neil McBride and


Harper, Joseph
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Dr. M. S. Miller.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Clause 18

SHORT TITLE, CITATION AND COMMENCEMENT

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 4, line 11, leave out 'and (5)' and insert '(5) and (6A)'.—[Mr. Taverne.]

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has been mainly concerned with the changeover period and with the vital rôle, which will emerge more and more in the period before decimal day arrives, of the Decimal Currency Board. At this stage I will restrict my remarks to the plans of the Board.
It is essential for everyone to realise that D-day is less than two years ahead. It is necessary for each and every organisation affected by the change to make detailed plans. The Decimal Currency Board will be concentrating this year on the retailer and doing its best to ensure that retailers understand what decimalisation involves.
Towards the end of 1970 the Board will turn its efforts towards its publicity campaign for the benefit of the public. The Board believes, I consider rightly, that it would be a mistake to mount its largest campaign too soon.
Although hon. Members may not be concerned with the Bill after today, we can all play a part in our constituencies in helping people to understand what this historic change in the currency system means. Publicity is vital in this matter. The knowledge of the public is equally vital and retailers should, therefore, make their plans in good time.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Higgins: The House in general will agree that it is to be hoped that the purpose of the Bill, which is to facilitate the process of decimalisation will not result in the transition causing difficulty and that the transition will take place as smoothly as possible. That must be agreed, whatever one's views about the type of coinage or process of decimalisation. Whether or not the change-over is smooth will depend to a considerable extent on the way in which business men and others most affected by the change plan ahead and get their plans going at as early a date as possible.
The Minister will appreciate, because we have debated this matter at length both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, that my hon. Friends and I are not entirely happy with the Bill as it stands. One point has come to my attention recently.
Earlier, the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the conversion of certain machines, such as chocolate machines, saying that they would be delivering larger bars which would, in future, be paid for under this Bill and under the Act by the new 5 penny coin, the equivalent of the present 1s. coin. But I understand that many of those who are trying to convert their machines already—and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the earlier conversion takes place the better—are finding that an adequate supply of the present 1s. coin or of the new 5 penny coin is not available. Consequently, while they are increasing the size of the items they are selling to double or thereabouts, they are having to put in machines which take two of the present sixpences. If that is so, they are incurring even more expense than they would otherwise need to do.
Now that the Bill has reached Third Reading and will, no doubt, soon pass through its further stages, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will ensure an adequate supply of coins of the new denominations in the period leading up to the transitional period as well as in the transitional period itself and beyond. This is an item which has not so far been covered by the Decimal Currency Board. I hope that it will now do so and that the period of transition will be smooth.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Taverne: Perhaps, by leave of the House, I can now reply to the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I take note of what he has sa1d. As I understand it, it is not the absence of adequate supplies of these coins so far as the Mint is concerned that is the difficulty, but the real difficulty is the one I was trying to convince him of earlier, which is that how far a coin is popular depends on how far people like to use it and not on the bank supply.
The Is. coin has always suffered difficulty in that it has not been a popular change-giving coin and has not found its way into circulation quite as rapidly as most people have wished. Hence the need often to change to two sixpenny coin-taking machines rather than shilling ones. We shall certainly look into the point.
Before closing, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Worthing and his colleagues, in particular the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott)—who I understand is ill—and also my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Mac-donald) for the assistance they have given throughout our discussion. They have made great contributions to the general discussion of the Bill, which is an important part of the transition itself.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

LAND COMMISSION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Miller.]

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: Hon. Members may ask why we are to have another debate on the Land Commission when we have already had three during the past week or so. My reply is, first, that it is an hon. Member's duty to take all steps to prevent hardship "being done to his constituents and to draw that hardship to the notice of the House; second, that, to date, Ministerial replies have been wholly unsatisfactory; and, third, that I was granted the Adjournment for Friday, 7th March, but it was later suggested that I might be out of order and, therefore, I should not proceed.
However, on 13th March the Table Office wrote to me as follows:
It has, however, since become clear that the Minister himself, by making an order under s. 63 of the existing Act, can direct that no levy be charged in certain specified circumstances. Orders of this nature do not count, for purposes of an adjournment debate, as legislation, and it would therefore be quite proper to use your half-hour to press the Minister to make such an order.
I am here tonight to press the Minister to make that Order and other Regulations, as he has the power to do.
I read the report of the debate on 21st March. Later I was encouraged by Press reports at the weekend. I had hoped that this debate would be unnecessary. I was shocked by the Minister's reply to the debate on 25th March. The weekend stories in the newspapers, although written by reputable reporters attached


to the House and others, were denied. No sympathy or feeling was shown for the hardships which were disclosed in the debate. It appeared to me, I am sorry to say, that the Minister was completely out of touch with the feeling in the country—which is strong—and devoid of any sympathy for those suffering hardship and distress.
Thus, I was even more determined to press on with this debate. I hope I may say that I am not usually one who merely raises matters to score party points. I feel sick at the lack of concern shown about these cases of worried young and old people with little money who are hounded—this is the only way to express it in certain cases—by the Land Commission because the Minister will not make Section 63 Orders exempting small cases.
I hope we do not have to wait until a suicide or a breakdown in health. The Minister responsible should know better than most the real possibility of a breakdown in health or a suicide from the worry caused by some of these cases. I hope that the Minister will take action before anything like that happens. A few of the right words tonight and these thousands of people will be relieved of the anxiety which I shall show they are suffering when I come to the cases which have been brought to my notice. If these words are not spoken tonight, I warn the Minister that scores of hon. Members will hammer away at this point until justice is done.
I wish to refer to particular cases which have been brought to my notice. I have referred most of these cases to the Land Commission. I can give full details to the Minister later, if he wishes.
The first case concerns a widow, a Mrs. Wigley. She wrote me in these terms on 22nd January:
Dear Sir, I have been advised to write to you about my problem. Five years ago when my late husband and I retired we spent all our savings on this cottage where I am now living and have now been a widow for two years and have nothing, only my pension to live on. Eighteen months ago I was offered £150 for a piece of my garden, which I readily accepted. This I received last March. Time "—
I think she must mean "by the time"—
I had paid solicitors' fees and had my cottage repaired which it was badly in need of I have now received a letter from the Land Commission demanding £45 12s. to be paid back to the Government within one month,

but I have nothing left. This is causing me a great deal of worry and distress, and I should be grateful if you have any solution to this problem.
That is a typical case of many hundreds throughout the country.
My second case concerns a gift of land. Again, there have been many hundreds of such cases. The gift was to a Mr. Sapey from a Mr. Hewitt, who wrote to me on 22nd February. I shall read just the relevant extracts from his letter. He wrote:
I would like if I may to draw your attention to an iniquitous and tyrannical case so far as the Land Commission is concerned over a piece of land which I have passed on to my good friend John Sapey by Deed of Gift for him to build a bungalow for himself in order to live nearer to his people. This is now about half completed, he being his own contractor,"—
Mr. Hewitt adds an explanatory note that Mr. Sapey is not a builder by trade but an employee of Watney Mann, the brewery firm—
doing some of the work in his spare time, the rest put out to sub-contractors. He is faced with a payment to the Land Commission of approximately £250. The enclosed demand is shown as £296, but he has got this reduced to £250. … He just has not got the money to pay the demand of the Land Commission, and to add insult to injury they are charging him 1s. 1d. per day interest.
Case No. 3 is somewhat different. I mention it to show the completely un sympathetic method adopted in certain cases to collect the levy. My constituent, then living in Northamptonshire, sold his share of a cattle hauliers business to his partner, a lady, because of ill-health. He retired to Norfolk and bought a bungalow with all his spare cash. His partner has not yet been able to pay him his share, due to the credit squeeze and other matters. The Land Com missioner's office in Nottingham has now written to him asking for payment of £2,388 4s. due only on 31st December last year on some part of that transaction, which we do not dispute. I would like the Minister to pay attention to the wording of the letter, remembering that it was written on 14th March, that the betterment levy did not become due until 31st December, and that already interest —

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): To try to get the matter cleared up, am I right in thinking that this is not a case


that the hon. Gentleman has notified to my office?

Mr. Hawkins: I have not. It came to my notice only during the past few days.
The betterment levy was due only on 31st December, and yet a letter was written only 2½ months later, by which time interest of £31 12s. had accrued in these terms:
Dear Sir,
Despite previous applications for the above, I have not yet been advised that payment has been made. Accordingy, I must give you final notice that, unless settlement is made within seven days, the matter will be placed with the solicitors with a view to Court action for recovery of the levy and interest due, with costs.
Will you please note that your liability to interest is now accruing at the rate of 9s. 1d. per day. Any remittance, which should include the full amount due (i.e. levy plus interest due to the date of despatch), should be sent to…
No further communication will be sent to you from this office.
That is a very harsh way to write to somebody who has not yet received from his partner a half-share of the proceeds of the sale and literally does not have to money to pay. Interest is mounting at a rate of £150 or £160 per annum. This is a completely wrong way to write to retired people. One can understand the anxiety and distress which it has brought to my constituents. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will not condone this, but it shows how these cases can build up to immense distress to individuals.
Case No. 4 is another familiar one, that of a young couple given a bit of land by an aunt. The young lady wrote to me:
My aunt has recently given my fiance and me a piece of land on which to build a bungalow. I enclose for your interest a copy of a letter together with enclosure, which I have received from the Land Commission.
As you can imagine we need all the money we can get to enable us to build the bungalow, buy furniture etc. and we do not feel it is right that we should have to pay £136 0s. 0d. for no apparent reason.
I have details of several other cases, some too complicated for me to understand, but enough has been said in this and other debates to show that these relatively small cases—small in total amount due to the Land Commission, but not small in number—which cause the greatest hardship are much more than the 3 per cent. of the total which the Minister referred to in a previous debate.
I wrote the the Minister on 12th March, saying, among other things:
I have several cases of considerable hardship under the Land Commission Act where single plot owners with very little money are being pressed for payments of some considerable sums … I have however read in he papers recently of a statement made by Mr. Willey who piloted the Land Commission Act through the House that (1) interest can be waived and (2) that the Land Commission had power to defer payment of levy.
I shall be very grateful if you can let me know whether this is the case and whether you will be issuing instructions to the Land Commission on these points. In the meantime I have told my constituents who are involved not to pay anything until the matter is clarified. I trust you will be able to do this fairly soon.
The Minister for Planning and Land replied on 26th March:
Under the provisions of Section 45(2) of the Land Commission Act, the Commission have power however, where they think the circumstances warrant it, to inform the levy payer that they are prepared to postpone collection or are prepared to collect the levy by instalments or that they are prepared to agree to an arrangement which combines both these facilities.
What does "postpone" mean here? Can it be left until death and collected from the deceased's estate where elderly people are involved? This is about the only way, very often, in which this sum can be pa1d. I hope that in these cases waiver of interest could also be made.
The Minister concluded in this letter, of which I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has a copy:
As you will see from the note, the postponement of levy is to be offered in those cases to which the Betterment Levy (Waiver of Interest) Regulations, 1967, apply. These are cases in which the benefit of the development comprised in the project under Case C is not immediately available and to collect levy forthwith might result in hardship to the person charged to levy. It would not be possible to extend the arrangements to waive interest to cover other cases "—
and here is the relevant phrase—
without a further set of Regulations under Section 51(4) of the Act.
Why should not a further set of regulations be made to cover these extra cases?
It seems that the conclusions from these debates are these. First, on 25th March the Minister admitted that there are cases of hardship. He said:
I have never denied that there are cases of hardship—never from the start."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 1343.]


Second, I am convinced, with my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) who spoke in an earlier debate, that the vast majority of the money collected by the Land Commission has come from small amounts, from small people who feel the hardship the most. Third, it is stated by many authorities—the Table Office in its letter to me; the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), in his article in The Times; and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)—that an Order under Section 63 could be made now by the Minister. This would relieve, by a de minimis provision, all those hardship cases which we have discussed.
Again, in his letter to me of 26th March, the Minister admits that a further set of regulations under Section 51(4) could be made to cover the waiver of interest in cases other than those previously covered.
So we have this position. Hardship is admitted by the Minister, and it is admitted that it is within the power of the Government to relieve that hardship and anxiety at once by announcing that they intend to issue the necessary Order under Section 63 and Regulations under Section 51(4). The Minister of Planning and Land has a last chance to do this now. I hope that he will because his previous remarks were out of character.
I feel sure that if the Parliamentary Secretary had been allowed to he would have liked to have given way. As it is, he is repeating "No, no, no" like that well-known character from Moscow, it may well be that the fault, as was the case with the Price Review, lies with the Chancellor and perhaps the Prime Minister. If so, let him say so and resign. I do not ask him to go into any details if he does not want to do so. All he has to do is to say whether he will issue these Orders and Regulations so that justice may be done and thousands freed as from tonight from anxiety.

9.43 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) has raised several interesting cases, and I should like to make comments upon two of them. I have not been

given notice of the others. I do not complain of that, because some may have come in late, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman has already been in touch with the regional offices. These cases, although apparently simple, can often be quite complex, and it is necessary to have all the facts before giving a helpful reply.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss or think that I am criticising him for raising this matter, but I am a little regretful that so much attention has recently been concentrated on this type of case—not that I do not want to see injustice put right, if it exists, and remedies applied. Because of this intense concentration, almost to the exclusion of everything else, the major purposes of the Land Commission Act and the Land Commission have tended to be obscured

Lieutenant-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: The hon. Gentleman says that a great deal of attention has been paid to hardship cases. Surely it is the purpose, perhaps even the duty, of hon. Members, to draw attention to such cases. If we did not do so, we would be avoiding our natural duty.

Mr. Skeffington: The hon. and gallant Gentleman could not have been listening to me. I said that it was the duty of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West to do that. I also said that I was sorry that there had been exclusive concentration on hardship because the whole purpose of what I regard as an essential reform in dealing with land has tended to be obscured and the Commission and those who serve it with devotion and loyalty have been painted in some quarters as being extremely oppressive in the way they operate the machinery. This is unfortunate because it is unjust and un fair.
I applaud what the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West has done, but the exclusive concentration, particularly in the Press, on this side of the matter has created an impression which is false and which in the long run is not in the interests of those who are seriously trying to find a method of solving the very difficult problem of betterment and land acquisition. The hon. Gentleman said that he was not anxious to score party points. Nor am I. Governments have been baffled by the problem of how to deal with the enhanced value of land


due, in most cases, not to anything which the owner of the land has done, but simply to the activities of society and its ever-increasing demand for land for housing development, schools, roads and all the other things which go to make a civilised society.
It is therefore important, even in the context of the cases which the hon. Gentleman has raised, that we should realise the major purposes of the Commission in attempting to deal with the problem of betterment and the acquisition of land on a comprehensive scale. If there were no objective and major social purpose there might be no point in having a levy and acquisition in the way in which the machinery of the Land Commission works. It is therefore necessary to look at these cases in the context of the operation of the Commission and the Act.
I shall say very little about acquisition because that is not so material to the cases which the hon. Gentleman has raised. The question of how to deal with the sudden creation of great wealth which is sometimes provided merely by a planning application is two-pronged: what can one do in the individual case, and how can one deal with cases collectively on behalf of society? Many people, including Professor Alan Day and an ex-Member of the House who was of the hon. Gentleman's profession, feel that some central organisation is necessary if land is to be available comprehensively where it is wanted, with a form of acquisition wider than that of any local authority, to meet the tremendous demand for housing and all the things which go with it.
It has been said that if we are to maintain a sufficient rate of house building to cater for the needs of people marrying younger and the growing population, which will perhaps be another 20 million by the end of the century, we need the equivalent of a new Bristol every year to accommodate 400,000 people, or a new town to accommodate 60,000 or 70,000 people every six or seven weeks. It is for this reason that many people feel that a central agency is necessary.
The Land Commission has been a long time getting off the ground. The Act

may be complicated, but so are the English land laws and the interests with which we have to deal. No land system in Europe is equal to ours in the various interests which have legal recognition. Wide concessions were made in the early stages, so that it was not expected in the first few years that the acquisition programme would be a large one. This is peripheral, although it has to be taken into account in considering individual cases.
The crucial issue is how society in general deals with the sudden creation of great wealth which is not due to action taken by landowners. The classical case is that of an acre of agricultural land worth £200 or £300 which, upon planning permission being given for the erection of a petrol station, for example, becomes overnight worth perhaps £40,000. It is the view of the public that this enhanced value which is brought about by the needs of the society should not go to an individual. Various solutions have been suggested, from the advocacy of a simple tax on site values to the solution adopted by the Government. I had thought that this view was generally accepted, but if there is disagreement on this I should like to know. I was under the impression that this policy was broadly agreed by both political parties. Although methods may differ, I have understood from speeches which have been made in the past that even the Conservative Party would not be opposed to a moderate tax or levy upon land which benefits from planning permission.

Mr. Hawkins: I cannot, as a back bencher, speak for my party, but I agree largely with what the Minister has sa1d. He said that he would speak about the larger aims of the Land Commission, but he has not yet done so. Speaking as a professional chartered surveyor, I wholly disagree that this policy has kept down the price of land; on the contrary, I am convinced that the workings of the Land Commission have increased the price of building land.

Mr. Skeffington: This is an argument to which I have not yet addressed myself. I am prepared to do so if the hon. Gentleman thinks it will be helpful to the House. Evidence from all parts of the country gives considerable support to the view that the operations of the Land


Commission have not added to the price of land because of the law of diminishing returns. People buy land for speculative building—or perhaps I should say for private enterprise building—but there is a limit to the amount which they will pay and to the amount which people will pay to buy the houses.
This is a controlling factor, quite apart from the fact, as I believe, that the greater the scale of the activities of the Land Commission, the more moderating its influence will be. I should like to see the Commission getting into its stride as rapidly as possible and helping to provide land for the 40,000 houses a year which are required in the Home Counties. I believe that it can do that, very much to the assistance of the local authorities.
Though there may be disagreement on individual cases, I think it is agreed that there is a case in society for taking, in at any rate a category of cases, some of the new value which land acquires when it gets the benefit of planning permission. The method chosen by the Government is the betterment levy at 40 per cent. which, in view of suggestions that it should be 70 per cent. or even higher, is a very moderate level in the kind of case which it is intended broadly to cover. I am sure that there will be no disagreement in the House about that, though I am not sure that the Country Landowners' Association will agree with me. Certainly sections of public opinion agree that it is right.
Then I move on to the question of how the levy is to be applied and what one does in cases of very much smaller amounts where the kind of problem emerges which the hon. Gentleman has described tonight.
I must begin by pointing out that there are a number of exceptions which have been of great benefit in that no levy has been imposed. In the course of last Friday's Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) referred to a speech which I had made about an exemption after the publication of the White Paper but well before the publication of the Bill. I imagine that he thought that there was some inconsistency between what I said in answer to a question and what the position really is. Indeed, when I heard that the hon. Gentleman intended to raise the

matter, I thought that I had given a hostage to fortune, particularly as the question had been raised at a public meeting and one sometimes does not carry all the relevant details in one's head. However, I hope that on that occasion I adopted a more precise attitude than one hon. Member who has been the subject of a recent inquiry by an all-party Committee of this House.
I was asked by a local councillor whether a plot of land next to a building would escape levy. I replied that, if someone who owned the land wished to use it for themselves or, say, for their son and daughter, there would be no levy. But, if it were sold to a builder as a business deal, it would then be levied. I am glad to say that that is correct. It was one of the great exceptions. If land were held for a single dwelling house for the owner or his son or daughter, it would escape levy.
That was the first of the concessions. It was a very valuable one, and it would have been quite wrong to penalise people who, well in advance of the White Paper, had procured some additional land either for retirement or by way of a gift for a son or daughter on marriage.

Lieutenant-Commander Maydon: If the land in question in the case which he has mentioned was sold to a son or daughter, would the same thing apply? Would there be no levy payable?

Mr. Skeffington: Provided that the conditions are satisfied, it would turn on whether the transaction was notifiable to the Inland Revenue. Once we get into the realm of a notifiable transaction, it might be affected. I should have to know all the circumstances —

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McCann.]

Mr. Skeffington: This was the first concession, and I think it was an important one.
In view of the other cases which have been put forward, it is right to draw attention to another concession of considerable importance. That is what I might call, for want of a better term.


the 10 per cent. tolerance in relation to dwelling houses. In these cases, if there is either rebuilding or expansion of an existing house, provided that the extension or rebuilding is not greater than 10 per cent. of the original area or 1,000 sq. ft., whichever is greater, it does not need a planning certificate and it escapes levy. This is a considerable concession or exemption. The 1,000 sq. ft. is an area as great as many of the houses being built by local authorities at the end of the war. It is right that this should be put on record to weigh against the other cases. It is not that one right justifies what the hon. Gentleman thinks is wrong. This is so that the public can see the picture as a whole.
On conversions, not more than three adjacent buildings can be converted to any number of separate dwellings without attracting levy. There are similar concessions relating to industrial expansion which are beneficial. In the case of industrial expansion the levy does not become payable, even if the extension is beyond this figure, until there is a sale. Therefore, the fears which some hon. Members and members of the public had about this being a deterrent to industrial expansion have not taken place.
There is then the waiver of interest regulations or the postponement of levy. This applies in a number of cases which are controlled by Section 45 of the Land Commission Act. I will not weary the House with the details, unless I am pressed. In these cases the collection of the levy in whole or in part can be postponed to a date that may be determined. This period is at the discretion of the Commission. I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point. This is a very important instrument which the Commission can use and, so far as I know, does use sympathetically in the discharge of its duties.

Mr. Hawkins: In other words, so far as the Minister can say, there is no reason why the Land Commission should not postpone payment of levy until death occurs.

Mr. Skeffington: I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to look at Section 45(2) to see where this concession applies and how it operates. I am not trying to be evasive, but this is rather complex. We

must consider that categories of cases are set out here and in the appropriate regulations which have to be read in conjunction with the various cases, A, B, C, D, E and F. The hon. Gentleman will realise that if I went further than that in answer I might give a misleading impression, which I do not wish to do.
The hon. Gentleman referred to hundreds of cases. I hope that the figures given about cases will be treated with caution and responsibility. I am not saying that if there is one case of hardship, particularly if it ought not to have arisen, it is justified, but I have looked at many of the cases that we have received. My impression—and I shall know more about this in due course—is that this is not nearly so widespread as has been suggested. If there is one case which has caused hardship it is to be regretted, but one must get the matter into perspective, and it is my job to try to do that tonight.
About 80,000 transactions a year will be notified to the Commission through the Inland Revenue. It is not a heavy bureaucratic operation because an additional copy of the form which has had to be completed in any case since, I think, 1931, simply goes to the Commission. In the overwhelming number of cases there is no levy. The form is examined and passed on. It is a matter of a few minutes' scrutiny, if no question of levy arises.
It is worthwhile putting on record that since we have had these Adjournment debates, and since there has been a campaign in the Press, a number of people have thought that if they sold any sort of house it would attract levy. This is not so. It is only where a question of betterment value in excess of the 10 per cent. tolerance to which I have referred arises that levy may become payable. In the ordinary sale of a house at its existing value no betterment value arises, and so no levy is pa1d. In the overwhelming number of the 80,000 cases there will be no levy. I am happy to put that on record, because the whole position may get very much out of perspective if it is thought that the contrary is the case.
I have been surprised in a number of cases that I have seen to find that those who could have taken advantage of


skilled advice, and of many of the provisions to which I have referred, either did not do so, or did not carry out the correct procedure. They started building operations before the due date. They did not take advantage of the simple matter of notifying the Commission in time. I am sorry about this, because I am sure that it was not due to anyone's malevolence, and I hope that it is not thought to be due to anything that the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, and now the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has done, because we conducted the best campaign that we could. We issued advertisements, and about one million leaflets. We issued booklets specially designed for property owners and estate agents. We issued a more technical book to those who had to deal with the subject. We did everything we could, and it is to be regretted that in some cases, although professional advice was available on quite simple points—I am not talking about the intricacies under A, B, C, D, E and F—mistakes were made. I very much regret that that was the case.

Mr. Hawkins: Mr. Hawkins rose—

Mr. Speaker: Interventions prolong speeches.

Mr. Hawkins: I wish to query what the Minister has said about the number of cases of hardship which come forward. I mentioned hundreds of cases. As I have had seven cases in one constituency, I believe that over the next few months several hundreds, if not thousands, of cases will come forward.

Mr. Skeffington: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be a little cautious about this. A number of cases which have come to us have not been cases in which there has been hardship of the kind that he has alleged, but cases of people who have not wanted to pay the levy, and I understand that. Nobody wants to pay any kind of tax. Nobody wants to pay rates. Not all of the instances that come to our notice have an element of hardship, or an element which, after consideration., would make society say no levy should be pa1d. The analysis so far—and I agree that it is not complete—is not such as to lead me to think that this is perhaps more widespread than I believe it is.
The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to two cases about which I have made some inquiries. He mentioned two more about which I have no details, although I know that he has been accurate in what he has said and they may well be with the Commission now. If he cares to send me details, I will look at those cases and, if I can, make helpful comments.
The first case he mentioned about which I have a note concerns Mrs. Wigley. He described it well and accurately. The Controller for the region where this case arose said that if Mrs. Wigley wished for help she should inform the regional office about certain details. She was sent a questionnaire for that purpose so that the Commission could be informed of the facts, and consider whether help could be given, either under the Act or through some kind of discretion.
Mrs. Wigley replied that the matter was being dealt with by the hon. Gentleman. He has been a notable advocate on her behalf. But I hope he will accept that the information which he has passed to the Land Commission was its first proper information about Mrs. Wigley's circumstances. Even if he had not intervened on her behalf, she would have been asked for those details, and on the basis of her replies the Commission would have considered how it could help her. I have had cases of this kind, as have other hon. Members, and perhaps I may emphasise that, if hon. Members get in touch with the regional controllers, they will always find them extremely helpful in suggesting ways in which cases can be tackled. They give a good deal of advice.
I understand that the payment in Mrs. Wigley's case is about £45 and that it should be possible to make the payments by instalments over a period which, I hope, will be neither oppressive nor unfair. However, I will keep a fatherly eye, as it were, on the case, although I have no doubt that the Land Commission will deal with it adequately and properly.
In the case of Mr. Norris, I understand that he offered his bungalow for sale and a purchaser agreed to pay the price.

Mr. Hawkins: I did not mention Mr. Norris. His is not one of the cases I mentioned, although I have it in my file.

Mr. Skeffington: I mentioned it because it was one of those which I understood the hon. Gentleman wished me to deal with.

Mr. Hawkins: I did not say so.

Mr. Skeffington: Then I will not weary the House with details. Perhaps my office was wrongly informed but I was informed that this was one of the cases he wanted me to deal with tonight.

Mr. Hawkins: I did not mention it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us not argue about cases we are not arguing about.

Mr. Skeffington: I have been into the case. There was some dispute as to whether levy was due and, as I have explained, levy becomes due if there is a difference between existing use value and the value of the property with a planning permission. This was the sort of case where the seller did not get planning permission but someone else did, and the price of sale was equal to the market price with planning permission, so levy became due.
I will look into the other two cases mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I do not have details of them. I hope that what I have said puts the matter into perspective. A number of concessions have been made in this matter. A vast number of transactions go forward without difficulty and I do not think that it is true, from what I know of the operations of the Land Commission, that it desires to be or is oppressive. We welcome details of any cases where this is thought to be so, and I assure the House that they will be carefully looked into.
I hope that the background details which I have given will help to put this matter into perspective. I will only add that the kind of cases which hon. Members have raised are being examined so that we may assess precisely what the position is.

10.16 p.m.

Lieut-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: The Minister's remarks lacked precision and clarity, particularly when he spoke about parents who wish to dispose of small pieces of land to their children. I should like a definite answer about the position of parents who sell, for a peppercorn price or even for the

valuation price, a small plot to a son or daughter who may wish to build on it. Are such parents and children expected to pay betterment levy?

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: My hon. Friends and I recognise that the Parliamentary Secretary is one of the few masters of the complexity of the Land Commission Act. We regret that there are not more hon. Gentlemen opposite to give him some support, for we note that he sits by himself on the benches opposite.
We do not understand why the simple mechanism of Capital Gains Tax could not be applied to those who derive any financial gain from betterment. We recognise that if planning permission enhances enormously the value of a plot of land, as it may do, the community is entitled to extract some tax or levy from those who have had that windfall. So far, however, the Government have not explained why the simple mechanism of Capital Gains Tax should not be applied.
Instead, the Government have created this edifice of a Land Commission, which is costing the taxpayer millions of £s with very little return. In so doing, they are causing great anxiety and distress to many people with small plots of land or with gardens which are larger than they really need and who wish, particularly when they are getting old and are seeking some supplement to their retirement pensions, to derive a small financial benefit from that holding.
It is all very well for the Government to say that people in this predicament can go to the regional offices of the Land Commission and have their cases sympathetically examined. That may be so, but it is harsh to expect people who are living humble and ordinary lives to incur that sort of trouble.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of people with small plots of land—perhaps of half an acre or a little more—on which their own homes may be sited and who feel that they can sell off a small part of the plot to a relative or neighbour, so enabling them to have an extra few hundred £s, do not realise that they will suffer by being charged betterment levy.
Thanks to the Press—we applaud the way in which the newspapers have taken


up these cases—many people are beginning to realise the dangers they run. It is astonishing that we should have set up this great edifice of a Land Commission when Capital Gains Tax would have done the job perfectly well. After all, the Government sought to hit the speculative owner of a sizeable amount of land with the advantage of planning permission and, thus, a windfall. It was right that he should pay some tax, but why should we have this cumbrous procedure—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot in an Adjournment debate abolish the Land Commission, even if the hon. Gentleman wishes to. We can talk about matters of administration such as other hon. Members talked about in the main debate on this subject this week.

Mr. Body: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Having sat on the Standing Committee for so long, I have acquired a certain hatred for the Land Commission Act.
The Government have not said why, in all these cases, the simple mechanism of Capital Gains Tax could not have been applied instead.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing what I asked him not to do. We cannot substitute Capital Gains Tax for the betterment levy in this Adjournment debate. There are other opportunities for doing so in Parliament, but not tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock.